This year's presidential campaign has taken several decisive turns and the developing themes are quite surprising. How should we think about this?

First is the theme of "class warfare," central to both the Gore and the Bush campaigns. Each, however, is giving a very different focus to the theme. (1) Gore has moved to a tie or slight lead over Bush primarily because of the themes he suggested in his acceptance speech. He promised so many new programs and bashed corporations so mercilessly that it seemed we were listening to FDR, LBJ or even Michael Dukakis. The crucial difference, however, is that Gore offered nothing to the non-working poor. Instead, he boasted of removing thousands from the welfare roles over the last eight years. Also interesting is that Gore did not mention the homeless even once in his speech. He presents himself as the ally of the hard-working, taxpaying American against the HMOs, tobacco companies and other unpopular corporations. In effect, Gore ignores the poor, a rather strange position for the Democratic party. (2) In contrast, while Gore ignores the poor, Bush lays out a persuasive vision for how to help them one based on charity and faith rather than entitlement and bureaucracy. He even specifically cited a faith-based homeless center in Minneapolis as an example. Bush discusses the underclass, while Gore ignores them how strange!! In addition, Gore's criticism of the rich and powerful has a twist to it that he may not be prepared for: The growth of the "investor class." Roughly half of American households now own stock, either directly or though mutual funds. Among voters, who tend to be older, the rate of stock ownership is even higher. It would seem that when Gore is attacking corporate America, he is attacking you and me, the owners of corporate America through our stocks. If I were Bush, that is what I would be saying!!

Closely connected to the above is the theme of "fighting," so prevalent in the Gore campaign. Indeed, as "working families" is a key theme for Gore so is his use of the term "fight." He used the term in its verbal or noun form 23 times in his acceptance speech. His task is to convince the American people that their real enemy is corporate power that many of them have their retirement savings invested in! Does the middle class that Gore is pandering to really feel threatened by corporate America or does it feel threatened by media forces, entertainment forces and those who set the cultural agenda? Which one of these centers of power really threatens America? Most families have invested part of their future in corporate America, all the while watching as the values and ethical principles that have historically defined America are undermined. If Gore or Bush are going to "fight" for anything, they had better fight for the values and the ethical principles that define a civilized, righteous society. Gore's populist themes do not measure up!!

See New York Times, "Editorial Observer" by Howell Raines, (24 August 2000) and "Why Class Warfare May Work This Year," Wall Street Journal (24 August 2000).

Back to top

WHAT THE KURSK TELLS US ABOUT RUSSIA

First of all, the president Vladimir Putin, seemed aloof and distant, especially at the beginning of the crisis. He decided, during the most critical days, to not cut short his Black Sea vacation and go immediately to the site where his presence could have energized the navy's rescue team and symbolize the government's commitment to the sailors and their families. His lack of interest reminded many of the old Russia where secrecy and indifference to human suffering characterized both Bolshevik and czarist Russia. If Russia is to emerge as a democracy, Putin must learn that public appearances and ceremonies are a part of leadership and help a nation deal with grief. And yet once Putin did get involved, he elevated the plight of the Kursk to that of a national priority. In addition, Putin said the old Bolshevik practice of laying blame gratuitously would not do! Now Russian military officials are surprisingly accessible and accountable. Putin seems to be learning, albeit belatedly.

Furthermore, Putin's government was slow in informing its own people and the world of the desperate situation of the Kursk. Only after two days was an announcement made and only after six days did Putin break off his vacation. Such public callousness has a long, sad tradition in Russian dating back to czarist Russia and to Stalin. It still bears direct evidence of the priority of state interests over human life, where there is a strong heritage of government control and manipulation of vital information. What is needed in Russia is something that they are not used to a compassionate and accountable leadership!

A final note is the recent canonization of Czar Nicholas II. Near the end of August, 144 prelates of the Russian Orthodox Church voted unanimously to canonize Czar Nicholas II and his family. The czar was canonized as a "new martyr," meaning he was canonized not for his rule but for his death. Ever since the collapse of Bolshevism in the 1990s, Nicholas has been a powerful symbol of everything that was wrong with Bolshevik communism. Today, Nicholas is pictured, not as a loving husband and father, but as an autocrat, the ruler of an enormous empire, whose banner carried the inscription, "Russia, one and indivisible," and protected by the prayers of the clergy. It is quite an incredible development, really, filled with a symbolism that we in the West cannot quite grasp. What it means for the future is anyone's guess right now. But it does send some confusing signals as to where Russia is headed.

Back to top

TED TURNER'S VIEW OF 'TOLERANCE'

During the last week of August, the United Nations sponsored a lengthy summit on religious tolerance and interfaith cooperation and dialogue. Ted Turner, the summit's honorary chairman and primary funder, opened the summit with a blistering attack on Christianity. His special target was the Christian teaching on salvation, which he characterized a "very intolerant" and for failing to be a belief system "of religious freedom." Turner explained that he was raised in a Christian home and once considered being a missionary. But broader religious studies taught him that Christianity "was very intolerant. . . and I said heaven is going to be a mighty empty place with nobody else there." How should we think about Turner's remarks? Sheik Yassin and Hamas could remain the wild card of regional politics because of their hatred for Israel. In 1987, he said, "I believe completely that Israel will vanish, and that we Palestinians will recover the lands and homes that were stolen from us in 1948." Furthermore, from inferences in the Koran, he argues," the year 2027 will see the end of the state of Israel."

Turner misses the main point does he not? It is not Christianity which declares there is only one way to God; God says that in John 14:6. The bedrock of 2000 years of church history is that Christ's command to "make disciples" is the driving force of the church. Our message is not a human message but a divine message.

What Turner is objecting to in Christianity can only be understood in the postmodern understanding of tolerance!! "Tolerance" is a smorgasbord of equal religious choices, where no faith or worldview can claim something exclusive!! That is the difficult issue for Mr. Turner there is a worldview that is claiming something absolute and exclusive.

If Mr. Turner is truly interested in true interfaith dialogue, he must stop bashing Christianity. He is not truly representing his desire for a genuine interfaith dialogue.

See "Washington Update," (30 August 2000).

Back to top