scudmissile

Actually, what these candidates assure their followers is that one can be a devout Christian (which seems for them to center on eliminating abortion and saying “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays) without manifesting any of the paradigm Christian virtues like humility and peacefulness. As long as we reject pornography and eliminate women’s rights to control their own bodies, it is perfectly Christian to avoid any critique of vast inequalities in power and wealth, be verbally aggressive and militaristic, and celebrate “American exceptionalism” while being openly contemptuous of other nations and cultures.

If someone argues that it is just not possible to combine Christianity and modern society, that Christianity is a matter of private faith and personal devotion, I would offer two thoughts.

First, if Christianity is a matter of private faith, then perhaps candidates for president should keep it private. We don’t need to know any essentially personal facts about them, only about those beliefs and actions which would shape them as political leaders. If Christianity is really too demanding, extreme, or idealistic to shape public life, let these men stop pretending it shapes theirs.

Second, however, while it is no doubt very difficult to combine Christianity and modern political life, some people—some Christians—offer us pretty good examples of trying to do so. Martin Luther King is one case. Any cursory examination of his statements and actions reveals devotion to ideals of freedom, democracy, equal rights, care for the poor, humility, respect for enemies, and peacemaking. Dorothy Day, who went from being a communist to being a devout Catholic, is another example. Her passionate concern for the destitute and relentless opposition to American militarism was joined with a gentle spirit and an open mind.

The upshot of all this is that perhaps it is time for Republican candidates to stop using Christianity as a club to beat up democratic opponents, or latte-sipping, environmentalist and feminist college professors like me, and start using it as a rigorous task master of their own behavior. And that it is also time for serious Christians to ask themselves if the public displays of their religion by politicians actually further its public presence—or make Christianity’s spiritual demands seem trivial to non-existent.

But there’s a deeper problem in the whole notion that what this nation needs is a successful businessman as president: America is not, in fact, a corporation. Making good economic policy isn’t at all like maximizing corporate profits. And businessmen — even great businessmen — do not, in general, have any special insights into what it takes to achieve economic recovery.

Why isn’t a national economy like a corporation? For one thing, there’s no simple bottom line. For another, the economy is vastly more complex than even the largest private company.

Most relevant for our current situation, however, is the point that even giant corporations sell the great bulk of what they produce to other people, not to their own employees — whereas even small countries sell most of what they produce to themselves, and big countries like America are overwhelmingly their own main customers.

Yes, there’s a global economy. But six out of seven American workers are employed in service industries, which are largely insulated from international competition, and even our manufacturers sell much of their production to the domestic market.

And the fact that we mostly sell to ourselves makes an enormous difference when you think about policy.

Consider what happens when a business engages in ruthless cost-cutting. From the point of view of the firm’s owners (though not its workers), the more costs that are cut, the better. Any dollars taken off the cost side of the balance sheet are added to the bottom line.

But the story is very different when a government slashes spending in the face of a depressed economy. Look at Greece, Spain, and Ireland, all of which have adopted harsh austerity policies. In each case, unemployment soared, because cuts in government spending mainly hit domestic producers. And, in each case, the reduction in budget deficits was much less than expected, because tax receipts fell as output and employment collapsed.

Today I called a Senator’s office for the first time.

First, let me say how fantastic it is that when you call the office, a real-live human picks up the phone and can speak to you. There’s no annoying menus, no transfers, no answering machines. Washington, please don’t ever change this.

I was calling mostly to find out why the Senator supports (and co-sponsored!) S.968, aka the PROTECT IP Act aka PIPA. Perhaps there was an argument I was missing — I know how myopic the tech world can be sometimes.

What I got was a reminder of how dangerous this legislation will be, for people who care about:

• the internet
• technology innovation
• creativity
• freedom of speech
• startups and job creation
• facebook, tumblr, youtube, reddit, 4chan, and any other major site that touches user-generated content

OK so back to my phone call. The first question I asked was “why does the Senator support this legislation?”

The guy on the other end of the phone said: “well, he’s a co-sponsor so he’s not changing his position.”

He must have known why I was calling.

Asked the same question again. This time the reply I got this time was different: “Senator Schumer is in favor of censoring the internet.”

….whhhhhhat? Up until now, most of the statements from congresspeople have done that neat thing politicians do where they say words but don’t actually answer the question. They do the “censorship” dance very well – never say it out loud, but vote for the bill nonetheless. From what I can tell “anti-piracy” and “pro-censorship” are actually the same thing here, though politicians usually argue the former so as not to seem anti-first-amendment. No one has been brazen enough to drop the C-word without hesitation. But this dude apparently had no problem with it. I said again: “So you’re saying Senator Schumer is in favor of censoring the internet?”

“Yes.”