Did You Catch Rachel's "Drift"?

The Rachel Maddow Show is my favorite non-sports TV program. Actually, I don’t watch TV much except for a few athletic contests, such as now some of the Chiefs’ games (which are pretty hard to watch this year) and most of the Missouri University Tigers’ football and basketball games—and the Rachel Maddow Show (maybe about a third of the time, including watching some of it online the following day ).

For you who may not know, Rachel Maddow (b. 1973) earned a degree in public policy from Stanford in 1994. She received a Rhodes Scholarship which led to her earning a Doctor of Philosophy in politics from Oxford University in 2001. Since 2008 she has hosted “The Rachel Maddow Show” five nights a week on MSNBC.

Earlier this year when I heard about Rachel’s (or should I say Dr. Maddow’s?) new book, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power, I wasn’t immediately inclined to read it. But because it was Rachel’s book, I decided to take a look at it. I found it quite well done—and quite important.

In the first chapter, Rachel cites Thomas Jefferson, who in 1792 wrote, “One of my favorite ideas is, never to keep an unnecessary soldier,” and seven years later he declared that he was “not for a standing army in a time of peace” (cited on p. 9). Throughout her book Rachel points out how greatly this country has drifted away from that idea, which was long upheld in the U.S.

“Stupid Regulations” (words spoken by Ronald Reagan) is the title of the fifth chapter, and early in that chapter Rachel writes, “Every Congress is meddlesome, disinclined toward war, and obstructive of a president’s desire for it—on purpose” (p. 96). But, largely due to the Iran-Contra scandal (remember that?) and the work of Ollie North (remember him?) things changed greatly.

Among other things, North solicited funds for the National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty and operated a “mirror image” of the CIA’s secret support to the Contras. “But unlike the CIA, which had to depend on money from Congress, this privately funded entity had added value: the privatization of Reagan’s foreign policy initiative turned out to be just the ticket for evading all those barriers the legislature had erected. (Stupid regulations!)” (p. 112).

In his written dissent to the congressional investigation of the Iran-Contra affair, Dick Cheney insisted that “Reagan was right to defy Congress, because there was nothing in Congress, nothing anywhere in America’s political structure, that could constrain a president from waging any war he wanted, however he wanted” (p. 124).

Thus, “By 9/11, the war-making authority in the United States had become, for all intents and purposes, uncontested and unilateral: one man’s decision to make” (p. 125).

There is much more I would like to share from Rachel’s Drift. But I will close with just a couple of items from Rachel’s “to-do list” for the country:

Going to war, being at war, should be painful for the entire country, from the start. Henceforth, when we ship the troops off to battle, let’s pay for it. . . . Whenever we start a new one, we should raise the money to pay for it, contemporaneously. . . .

Let’s do away with the secret military. If we are going to use drones to vaporize people in Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia, the Air Force should operate those drones, and pull the trigger (p. 249).

Soon I plan to write about how this country keeps droning on.

“Banzai Babe Ruth”

At this time seventy-eight years ago, in November 1934, the U.S. major league baseball All-Stars were on noteworthy trip to Japan. The story of that tour is engagingly told in Robert K. Fitts’ new book Banzai Babe Ruth (2012).

Actually, Fitts’ book is about much more than baseball: the subtitle is Baseball, Espionage, & Assassination During the 1934 Tour of Japan. There is a lot about intercultural relationships and politics in the book as well as baseball. I found it a most interesting read.

The manager of the American team was the venerable Cornelius McGillicuddy (1862-1956), better known as Connie Mack.* The All-Stars were headed by Babe Ruth, who was extremely popular in Japan, and it included other notable players, such as Lou Gehrig and “Lefty” Gomez.

On November 2 the American team arrived on the Empress of Japan and five thousand Japanese fans greeted them with shouts of Banzai! Fifteen games were played between the U.S. and the Japanese All-Stars—and the American team won them all, with Ruth hitting eleven home runs. 

The closest contest was played in Shizuoka on November 20, and the Americans won by a score of 1-0 on Gehrig’s home run in the sixth inning. The Japanese pitcher was the 17-year-old Eiji Sawamura.**

Connie Mack was so impressed by Sawamura’s performance that he tried to sign him to a Major League contract. Sawamura declined, saying, "My problem is I hate America, and I can't make myself like Americans."

At the time, though, the Americans were very positive about baseball diplomacy. During the 1934 tour, U.S. Ambassador Joseph Grew said, “Babe Ruth . . . is a great deal more effective Ambassador than I could ever be” (Fitts, p. 83).

Connie Mack said that the trip did “more for the better understanding between Japanese and Americans than all the diplomatic exchanges ever accomplished” (p. 226).

Mack also declared that “there would be no war between the United States and Japan, pointing out that war talk died out after the All-Star team reached Nippon” (p. 230).

But such sentiment did not hold. Seven years later Pearl Harbor was attacked and the U.S. entered the bloody Pacific War. In the ensuring conflict, some in the Japanese infantry screamed “To hell with Babe Ruth!” as “they charged to their deaths across the mangrove swamps of the South Pacific” (p. 256).

After seven stellar years as a pitcher for the Yomiuri Giants, Sawamura, who hated America even as a teenager, enlisted in the service for the Emperor and died in battle in 1943.

As for Ruth, he was “absolutely furious” when he heard about the 12/7/41 attack. “For him, Pearl Harbor was a personal betrayal” (p. 255).

But just before his death from cancer in 1948, Ruth reflected,

Despite the treacherous attack the Japanese made on us only seven years later, I cannot help but feel that the reception which millions of Japanese gave us was genuine. . . . No doubt there were plenty of stinkers among them; but looking back at the visit I feel it is another example of how a crackpot government can lead a friendly people to war (pp. 256-7).

The latter statement, perhaps, also describes the U.S. in 2003.

_____

* Connie Mack III & IV

Connie Mack's grandson Connie Mack III was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1983 to 1989 and the U.S. Senate from 1989 to 2001, and his great-grandson Connie Mack IV currently serves in the House, although he lost his seat in last week’s election.

** The Sawamura Award

Japan's equivalent to the Cy Young Award in the U.S. is the Sawamura Award, which has been given to the best professional pitchers in Japan since 1947. It was named, of course, in honor of Eiji Sawamura. The award was given to Yu Darvish in 2007 and Hisashi Iwakuma in 2008; they were both starting pitchers in the U.S. Major Leagues this year.

God and the Election

“God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat.” This is a “catch phrase” that Jim Wallis and the Sojourner community have been using for many years. And certainly it is a correct assessment of the political situation in the U.S.

But does God not care what policies the parties and their representatives promote? Is one party as good as the other in God’s eyes? And does it make no difference who Christians, or other people of faith, vote for?

Just before the election, some Christians were saying, “God is sovereign; no matter the outcome of the election, God is in control.” That, too, is doubtlessly true. But does that mean it makes no difference who (or which party) wins the elections—or that God causes the candidates/party God wishes to be in office to be victorious?

In his concession speech, Todd Akin, the beleaguered Senate candidate from Missouri, declared that “it’s particularly appropriate to thank God. He makes no mistakes and . . . is much wiser than we are. So I say, to God alone be the honor and the glory regardless of how He decides to organize history.”

Since Mr. Akin is a Calvinist, we can understand how he might think that the elections turned out in accordance with God’s sovereign will. But probably most of us who are not Calvinists are more likely to believe that the election results had far more to do with the free choice of the people who voted than by the sovereign “manipulation” of God.

(It is also quite likely that Mr. Akin lost his Senate race because of strongly negative voter reaction to his beliefs and statements rather than because of God causing his defeat.)

“Neither party is going to bring in the Kingdom of God,” someone wrote just before the election. I am sure that that also is an accurate statement. Any and all talk of human effort “bringing in” or “realizing” the Kingdom of God is erroneous.

And yet, Jesus surely meant it when he told his followers to pray, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The Kingdom of God is not just about a glorious future beyond human history. It is about God’s will being done, however incompletely or inadequately, in the here and now.

Thus, I have serious questions about a statement posted recently on an Anabaptist blog: “Neither party is nearer the Kingdom of [God] than the other.”

Since there is considerable difference between the party platforms, though, isn’t one is more nearly in keeping with what God wants (the “dream of God”) than the other?

In my judgment, which may or may not be accurate, I believe that the current Democratic platform better represents Kingdom values. So I voted for the Democrats on the national ticket not because they were Democrats, but because I believe their policies are more consistent with my understanding of the Kingdom of God.

Just one example: In the Kingdom of God surely the health needs of all persons will be taken care of. Even though there are some problems with it, I believe that what has derisively been dubbed “Obamacare” is a move in the right direction. Mr. Romney said he would repeal Obamacare his first day in office (which, of course, he couldn’t have done).

Although it is just one of many I could give, this is an example of how for me, and no doubt for many others, God (and God’s Kingdom) was related to the November 6 election.

How to Vote on November 6

Tomorrow is an exceedingly important election day. Because of absentee and early voting possibilities, some of you may have already voted. But I assume most of you, like me, will be voting sometime tomorrow. So I am writing this to make some suggestions about how to vote. (Note: this is different from telling you who to vote for—although I could do that, too, if you want me to!)

Here are some suggestions to consider:

(1) Vote on the basis of the political position of the candidates. I once thought that consideration of the personal qualities of a candidate was the most important factor and that one should always vote for who they thought was the best person. But I now consider that way of thinking to be misguided.

It is a candidate’s, and his or her party’s, policies that are of most importance. That may not be the case in county elections, and maybe not even for some state elections. But it is certainly true, I think, in national elections.

For a long time now I have said that the personal life of public officials is nobody’s business. Rather, it’s a politician’s official policies and decisions that are of greatest importance. For example, I am happy that former President George W. Bush is a faithful husband and doesn’t cheat on Laura. But his personal morality is of little concern in comparison with, say, his wrongheaded decision to launch a preemptive war on Iraq—a decision that cost the lives of many U.S. servicemen/women and of many, many Iraqi soldiers and even more civilians.

    (2) Vote with full consideration of the totality of a candidate’s (and his/her party’s) political positions, not just his or her stance on one or two issues. People should vote on the basis of their cherished values, of course. And those of us who are Christians should vote on the basis of our Christian convictions. But we should consider a wide range of values/convictions and not just focus on a few, high-profile issues.

The Value Voter Summit, for example, is heavily skewed toward opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. But not only are there other understandings of those issues, universal healthcare, programs providing necessities for those locked in poverty, opposition to a view of American exceptionalism that tends towards military conflict, etc. are much more important values to consider.

    (3) Vote for one of the major party candidates for President (and for the U.S. Congress). Neither might be “best,” but one is certainly going to win. And surely one is better than the other. You might as well vote for the better of the two, for no “best” third-party candidate is going to win the election (at least this year).

Some people are tempted not to vote at all as a protest against not having better candidates. But  not voting doesn’t have any positive effects. Again, even if you don’t like either candidate, surely it is preferable to vote for the better one than not to vote at all.

    (4) Finally, vote with the recognition that the world as we know it will not end if “your” candidates or “your” party does not win the election. The matters you are most interested in may get worse because of the election—but a “course correction” is possible in two years and especially in four years. That’s one very good thing about democracy in the U.S.!