L-Names

What crests above moons?

hair, small and black/blonde

determined to warm and

produce-induce salivation in me

LOVE IT

love my hair in turn

after my trunks, eyes, and head circumference

Vain new age hogwash

Surreal inventions

my money, every week

paying for meals of sex

photobooth1

“I’m not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular non-profits.  I’m not saying that they’re somehow better at lifting people up. What I’m saying is that we all have to work together — Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike — to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.”

Naturally, the secular left is not happy about this development.  But neither are many on the spiritual left.  Speaking as a progressive, as an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA), and as someone who has successfully organized a church-based food pantry, I have a message for Obama and any other politician who is making the sacred task of outreach ministry a tool of political pandering:

“Get your hands off my faith-based initiative!  We don’t want any of your government money getting in the way of our work.”  

It’s a bad idea for a number of reasons:

1) Over-Regulation.  The government never just gives you money.  There are always rules and regulations, mountains of paperwork, and any number of hoops to jump through - sometimes they make sense, sometimes they don’t.  This extra work always seems to stand in the way of doing the real work at hand.

2) The Fickle Nature of Politics.  Government funding can get turned on and off like a faucet, depending on the political climate .  Entire agencies can get the ax simply because a new administration comes in with different priorities.  Charities need to depend on consistent money sources that are not politicized.

3) Strings Attached.  There really is no such thing as a free lunch.  Government funding equals a government agenda, and the political issues of the day will certainly affect where the funding goes.  Instead of the meeting the greatest needs of the people, the money will tend to go where it makes the elected officials look best.

4) Separation of Church and State.  This is one area where I agree with atheists.  Looking back through history, it’s clear that when government and religion are in cahoots, bad things tend to happen.  They need to be a check on one another’s power, and the line between them needs to stay crystal clear.  This program blurs that line.

5) A Higher Calling.  Feeding the poor, tending the lame, caring for the widow and the orphan.  These are some of the most sacred tasks for Christians and for other religions.  Using government money to do these tasks is not acceptable.  Individuals are called to give of their time and money because giving is a central part of what we believe.  It is part of building a community that takes care of one another.  Being funded with government money raised through taxation cheapens this noble task.   The government certainly has its role in meeting the needs of the people, but this does not come through doing for the faithful what they should be doing themselves. 

So thanks, Barack, but no thanks.  Our charities are not another pawn in the chess game of this election.

“We are in a position where the reality of our financial situation is causing us to look at how we can be more efficient,” [Rob Brendle, associate pastor] said, “and we spent a lot of time thinking and analyzing how best to do that. These are difficult times, and these have been difficult decisions. But the floor of this church has not fallen out.”

Why the hard times? If we believe the church leaders, Ted Haggard was the one “bad apple” in the bunch, and without him the Church is free of sin and able to go about its mission without interference. So why the drop in attendance and donations? I see two possible reasons:

First, perhaps New Life was only about Ted Haggard. Haggard was New Life’s center. He founded the church out of his basement in 1984 and perhaps without his leadership and charisma the money has stopped rolling in. If so, New Life is nothing more than a cult of personality built around Haggard. The drop in attendance and donations says to me that Ted’s evangelical message wasn’t the main driving force, it was Ted himself. Thou shalt not worship false Idols right?

Second, perhaps the ensuing scandal drove people away. If this is the case, I think those former New Life parishioners and givers still aren’t quite getting the message. Why back away from a church if the head pastor is involved in scandal? If the weakness is removed from the leadership, why stop giving? Are the evangelicals in Colorado so unforgiving that they can’t stand to even be loosely associated with Haggard? Or are these Christians so scared of “sin” that they can’t be near something they consider tainted? As I argued when Haggard was first outed and then “cured”, the New Life Church seems to be missing a classic Christian opportunity. With all the publicity this scandal has brought they are in a prime position to spread their message of love and hope and show the world what true Christians they are. Instead, they ask Haggard to leave his church, suggest it would be better for him to move far away, and stop contributing money or attending services. It seems to me they only want what’s pure and are unwilling to get their hands duty and do some real spiritual work, namely saving the souls of those imperfect men among us.

At the end of January, in an aggressive sign of willingness to take the netroots seriously, Edwards hired Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, both of whom are highly respected liberal bloggers. What Edwards may or may not have realized, is that Marcotte and McEwen had written a few things in the past, on their personal blogs, that could be considered offensive to some.

Danny Glover, no, not that Danny Glover, was the first to take offense. The New York Times was the next to take aim, quoting Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League as saying, “John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.” One of the offensive statements that drew a lot of attention was an instance in which Marcotte reffered to President Bush’s “wingnut Christofascist base.” I can see why this could be considered offensive by some, and why John Edwards would not want to be associated with these types of statements. On the other hand, there are a few things being overlooked that are important to understanding this situation.

1. Many bloggers, especially on the far right or far left of the ideological spectrum, use harsh language to make their points. This is largely a result of the fact that they are individuals genuinely expressing themselves. Without an editorial board to limit the language they use to communicate they are free of some of the constraints traditional journalists face when crafting an argument. Aside from just bloggers, pundits from both sides of the aisle have a history of using offensive speech to advance their cause.

2. When Marcotte and McEwen wrote the statements in question, they were not in any way affiliated with the Edwards campaign. It is fair to criticize a candidate for something a staffer says once they are hired, but to go through their personal blogging archives is just nitpicking.

So, as has been pointed out by others, Edwards has no legitimate reason to take the advice of those like Bill Donohue on the issue of who should or shouldn’t be on his campaign. Those on the left, whom Edwards needs to withstand a particularly crowded primary field will not likely be offended by previous statements made by bloggers on his campaign. Those on the right, particularly members of the Catholic League, would not consider voting for Edwards in a general election anyway, regardless of who he hired as bloggers.

Fortunately, in his cautious tone, Edwards seems to agree with me on some level and has made the right decision:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

Edwards has set a strong example for other democratic contenders to follow. When faced with trivial attacks from the right, on a matter of spirituality, or any other issue, it is essential to stand your ground and fight for what you believe is right. Lesser candidates would have caved to the pressure and fired the bloggers in an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug. Kudos to John Edwards for taking a stand.

The Bush administration’s mistakes are many and widely known, and there is little point in hashing over them here. But the reaction the Right’s failings have caused among many formerly staunch supporters, especially among religious people, gives me hope that we may soon see the beginnings of a change in how Americans think about their nation and its relationship with the outside world. The main issue that keeps rattling around in my skull these days is consumer culture, which was spawned in the United States and is rapidly spreading all over the globe.

Here in Moscow, a pair of Levi’s cost 100 USD, and are considered the height of fashion. In Marrakech young women wear jeans and carry iPods under their jellabas, and sneakers and brand name T-shirts are favorites among the young men. Even in the High Atlas, in small mountain villages with rocky streets and goats living underneath the living rooms, there are Coca-Cola signs in the shops. The US has not only a massive economic and military influence on the rest of the world, but also a consistently increasing cultural one. If our nation could formulate a solid and consistent ideology of human rights and international charity, our potential for doing good across the globe would be virtually unlimited.

Before I traveled abroad, I was largely unware of the extent to which Western culture has permeated the world. I am particularly bothered by the way in which Western clothing, music, and gadgets are seen as superior to traditional types. Then again, perhaps the spread of computers, cell phones, and television are ushering in the beginnings of a world culture, something that can be shared and understood from Dublin to Vladivlastok. The problem with that, though, is that it’s corporate culture, consumption culture… Eh, who knows. Tatah Kim, what comes next? Consumerism is the bug in my ear, the itch I can never scratch because it moves around whenever I look for it, the concept I cannot formulate a solid opinion on because the impressions are too diffuse, too scattered, too contradictory.

My hope is that the emerging Spiritual Left will help to bring a less materialistic sensibility to American politics. After all, it was Jesus who said, “Go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (Mark 10:21) A focus on good deeds and a you-can’t-take-it-with-you approach to materialism would be very powerful and compelling in modern America, where we are beginning to understand that no amount of objects can bring happiness and personal fulfillment. If we were to spend half of the money we’ve already spent on Iraq on social projects and international aid, we would probably have made life better for millions of Americans as well as reduced the ranks of our enemies abroad. It seems that, having watched the failure of war and gruff international diplomacy, many organizations on the Religious Left are beginning to develop platforms that reflect the concept of a more equal and sustainable distribution of wealth on our planet.

The Christian Alliance for Progress, for example, lists the following under “Our Values” on their website.

“Justice for All: We stand against powerful systems of human injustice in our world as Jesus stood against them in his.
Equality and Inclusiveness: Like Jesus did among women, tax collectors, Samaritans and others, we reject hurtful exclusionary distinctions between “us” and “them.”
Faithful Stewardship: We follow Jesus’ call for responsible stewardship - caring protection for the environment and sharing of our worldly treasure.”

These kind of values are eminently Christian, and also relatively liberal, especially when the Religious Right is campaigning against gay marriage, talking about a crusade against Islam, and rarely taking any interest in environmental concerns or world poverty. They also reflect a critical concept for the modern era - “the sharing of the world’s treasures.” I have been bothered for months by a BBC article which pointed out that it would take 3 Earths to sustain the entire human population at Developed World standards of living, and any kind of ideology that suggests or screams that the Developed World must start sharing its wealth is a good one by me.

It would be also be nice to have leaders who seek to follow the teachings of Jesus rather than the dictates of corporations and conservative pundits in terms of battling the current corruption in American politics. If we do not overcome the influence of money on politics, we can look forward to increased corporate power, fewer protections for workers (in the name of the free market, of course), and decreased corporate responsibility. At the same time, we cannot deplore the influence of big money on politics while simultaneously feeding corporations through our purchases. Every dime of those campaign contributions and “gifts” to senators, congressmen, lobbyists, and others originally came from the pocket of citizens, after all. The example of the church-led boycotts during the Civil Rights struggle were a powerful example of how an economically conscious religious organization can impact the status quo in the most effective way - by going after the profit margin. Such an approach is particularly important given the influence of business in politics, as economic pressure properly applied would be tantamount to political pressure.

The efficacy of faith-based politics has been proven time and time again, it is merely a matter of what the religious groups focus on - if we can get away from the old and oft-abused issues of abortion, gay marriage, and stem-cell research, sincerely charitable and tolerant religious groups will probably find the majority of Americans not only accepting of their goals, but also willing to work alongside them.

In short, if the Spiritual Left can look to the future and remember the examples of the past, it has great potential to aid in the long and arduous task of once again making America stand for something good, honest, and sincere in the eyes of the world, a change that is becoming more and more critical as we continue to alienate our allies and infuriate our enemies. Furthermore, something must be done to address the massive economic inequalities that plague many parts of the planet, and a ideology of human rights and charity will be critical to developing methods of supplying food, medicine, and housing to the millions of suffering people throughout the world.

In a recent article, run by The Economist, organic foods were treated as a prime example of the way consumers are now expressing politics in even their most mundane of actions. In a capitalist society, the argument goes, everything is undertaken within the marketplace, and everything is, or soon will become, a commodity. As such, the sum of your choices as a consumer, can, and should be, the measure of your personality, your morality, your politics. When you buy organic, locally-grown produce, you are supporting regional farming and enterprise. You simultaneously reject the environmental costs of shipping foods from afar. When you opt for the free-range chicken you are ensuring the chickens lived with some modicum of dignity. When you buy products with the FairTrade label, you are helping farmers climb out of poverty, ensuring equitable trade conditions as well as supporting community development and environmental sustainability.

All these methods are not an exercise in perfection. Fair Trade has a number of critics who cite the practice as “a form of subsidy that impedes growth.” That aside, the majority of studies have found the benefits on local farmers to be irrefutable. The extra revenue they generate is used on the necessities of life, education, and business capital for investing.

Although this brand of grocery shopping represents only one example of politically motivated consumption, the anonymous Economist author rode this single example to the following conclusion: if political efficacy is your aim, your vote is key, not your wallet. While the argument was not an entirely convincing one, the article itself is an allusion to the political ramifications for a party which embraces, or fails to embrace, the issues at hand.

Efforts to woo this consumption-conscious demographic have been largely Democratic, but that does not mean they have been large. Democrats may often bill themselves as the champions of the environment, but their actions often seem motivated more by political considerations than from actual conviction. The Republican record is by and large shaped by their belief in the power of the free market and the potentially disastrous consequences of alienating their pro-business constituency. This renders the Democratic hold over this segment of society so unchallenged they needn’t offer anything more than minimal support. In spite of this concession by Republicans, the Democrats would be wise to put forth more effort into securing this block.

As both parties are making centrist moves, the differences become less, and apostates become more likely. Examining the root causes of the issues surrounding this new trend, it seems the political windfall could be huge for the first group to take concerted action. If both continue to sleep, the power of public spending, somewhat trivialized by The Economist, would be forced to coax the companies into action of their own accord. No doubt this would be effective, as mammoth corporations like General Electric have already begun reading the signs on the wall. They have recently started boasting of their “Ecoimagination,” rolling out ambitious initiatives in the process. Allowing such a trend to continue of its own momentum would not only be a political opportunity squandered, it would also not be as efficient as appropriate legislation.

So, what is at the core of this movement that has roused giants like GE into action? Certainly there is a degree of self-interest involved. Avoiding foods produced with the aid of pesticides, chemicals and other unnatural elements is just good personal policy. Small, locally owned business is endangered by cost cutters like Wal-Mart. Moreover, shopping organic has become for many a marker of class-status, another example of conspicuous consumption. But despite the selfish interest that might spur some of the action, it is not an adequate explanation for the phenomenon. How to explain those who protest corporations like Wal-Mart, never having been employed by, or in competition with, the chain? Or those who denounce unfair treatment for foreign manufacturers of US goods, paying more for brands that are produced in an equitable fashion?

Some, no doubt, do it from traditional religious convictions. Some out of concern for their fellow man. Others are appalled at corporate malfeasance. All of these reasons, however, are simply subcategories of a super-structure; morality. As this morality is conspicuos by nature, it markets itself. Potential converts are attracted by the social responsibility, compassion and justice it endorses and exemplifies. It is thus a steadily growing community.

This subset demands to be addressed. In the same way the Republicans have kowtowed to the religious right, making ostensible piety and military strength their bread and butter, the Democrats need to cozy up a little closer to those working for positive, moral change. The foundations for the movement are just the sort of adaptable ethics that can be simultaneously religious and secular in nature. The appeal is widespread, and its consequences could be manifold:

First, it would work to refute two claims, the former spiteful and dubious, but the latter with some meat to it: that Democrats are Godless, and that Democrats are reactionaries who do not stand for much.

Secondly, current political cynics, contemptuous of the dual Republican/Democratic choice and thus non-participants, could be coaxed into the political process. A couple of palpable wins in the fight against corporations would do much to invigorate a portion of the population who thought American politics was so far gone as to be not worthy of their time or efforts.

Additionally, and perhaps most promisingly, current members of the already-shifting religious right would be forced to take a second look at the Democratic Party. With such a progressive agenda in action, the devout would face some tough choices: on one side lie the Republicans and their staunch objections to abortion. On the other are the Democrats. While they would not be able to offer the religious high ground such a weighty single issue as abortion, what they lacked in heft they would make up for in quantity.

If explained, promoted and packaged correctly, the Democrats’ new, bolder stance could easily come to be seen as championing agricultural entrepreneurship, public health, environmentalism, global market equality, protection of God’s bounty, and something sure to get chest-pounding patriots enthused: Democrats could be the revivers of the American family farm, now severely endangered by industrial farming.

Lastly, and this may or may not be enticing to those Democrats within the machine, it would provide another much needed distinction between the two parties that currently constitute our democracy.

Unfortunately, the Democratic support for this phenomenon has thus far been nominal in nature. The Green Party, who after a brief cameo in the 2000 election is now a mere receding fringe element, has been the only American political party to clearly, coherently and comprehensively address the matter. They do not equivocate in stating their environmental goal, “a sustainable world where nature and human society co-exist in harmony.” Their platform goes beyond lip-service. It not only concedes all the elements that plague our environment, it offers sensible, genuine solutions to them.

Certainly the issues raised in this article contain no dramatic insight on my own part, one which has escaped the heady think tanks on the Democratic payroll. It is no doubt apparent that this issue could be a political boon to whichever major party embraces it. What presumably prevents their reaping it, however, is their own close ties to corporate America. What’s good for business is not always good for a nation.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Call to Renewal is “a faith-based movement to overcome poverty.” Its sister organization, Sojourners, seeks to “articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world.” Under the leadership of Jim Wallis, author of God’s Politics and a sought-after public speaker whose talks address themes such as “Practicing a Faith That Does Justice,” these two groups campaign to combat poverty, raise the minimum wage, end the genocide in Darfur, pressure corporations like McDonald’s to treat workers fairly, and resolve conflicts in the Middle East through diplomatic rather than military means.

The Illinois-based organization Protestants for the Common Good (PCG), like Sojourners, pursues faith-based activism through educational programs and mobilization: registering people to vote, lobbying for increased spending on public housing and education (as well as many other social reforms), and organizing letter writing campaigns to put pressure on Congress. PCG runs an online newsletter, and their website contains a number of official essays on controversial issues like gay marriage, reproductive rights, and affirmative action.

Tikkun is an interfaith organization centered in the Berkeley area. Founder Michael Lerner is a rabbi at the Beyt Tikkun synagogue and the author of a number of books, most recently The Left Hand of God. Tikkun runs a self-titled magazine and a number of campaigns, such as a media watchdog project. Together with organizations like Sojourners, they have organized national conferences on “progressive spirituality.”

For some liberals and progressives, phrases like “God’s politics” and “faith-based movement” may bring to mind uncomfortable associations of anti-abortion activists, prayer in schools, bans on the teaching of evolution, and a perceived threat of theocracy in America.

But for Wallis, Lerner, Protestants for the Common Good, their associates, their audiences, and millions of believers in America, the liberal agenda of progressive social change, egalitarian social justice, and challenging authority is an intrinsic part of the world’s many faiths. These representatives of the “spiritual left” approach politics through the lens of theologies and beliefs that emphasize religion’s duty to help the poor, embrace the stranger, and fight the oppressor.

Liberal Christian denominations such as the Society of Friends (Quakers), the United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalists share these beliefs, as do many liberal practitioners among Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and other religious communities. Such groups often support gay marriage, women’s reproductive rights, a more equitable distribution of the world’s wealth and resources, and policies to protect the environment – all on religious and spiritual grounds. They also oppose unjust wars, torture, and the death penalty, again for reasons of faith.

Through their political activism, the spiritual left is attempting to reshape the relationship between religion and politics in America and to bridge the gap between liberal religious Americans and their conservative counterparts. The spiritual left is also reaching out to secular liberals, arguing that while secular and religious worldviews will certainly not line up in every aspect, their visions for society – in terms of justice, human rights, and social progress – very well could.

Spirituality in American Politics: Voids and Opportunities

When Senator Barack Obama delivered the keynote address at Call to Renewal’s Building a Covenant for a New America conference in late June 2006, he reflected on the relationship between liberals, conservatives, and religion in America.

“The single biggest ‘gap’ in party affiliation among white Americans today,” Senator Obama said, “is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don’t.”

“Conservative leaders,” Senator Obama continued, “have been all too happy to exploit this gap . . . [and] Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that – regardless of our personal beliefs – constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word ‘Christian’ describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.”

Echoing Obama’s words, Tikkun believes that liberals’ unwillingness to engage with public religion has meant that so far, Republicans have taken the lead in offering Americans a spiritual message that resonates with their core values.

In a time of nation-wide spiritual crisis, Tikkun says, Americans need answers not just to how they will feed their families and protect their jobs, but to how they will make sense of a dangerous and rapidly changing world. Using tough talk about tradition, patriotism, family, faith, and freedom, the Right has monopolized a position of moral authority. Emphasizing a rhetoric of beliefs and values, Tikkun believes, has won Republicans support from millions of independent, religious, and “red state” voters uncomfortable with liberal candidates who only mention morals and values in passing.

“The lack of a spiritual dimension in the agendas of our allies in progressive social change movements,” Tikkun’s Core Vision states, ” . . . has allowed the Right to present itself as the force that cares about spiritual issues. And the Left’s failure to address spirituality has led many to believe their hunger for a larger framework of meaning and purpose must be separated from their involvement with social transformation.”

This void has also, Protestants for the Common Good writes, given conservative Christian voices disproportionate weight in national discussions of morality and policy. “Organizations from the Christian political right, such as the Christian Coalition, mistakenly portray themselves as speaking on behalf of all Protestant Christians on a wide range of public issues,” PCG says. “These groups [have] influence beyond their numbers in setting the moral tone for our country, in our state legislatures and in Congress.”

But if liberals engage with the Right on the plane of spiritual politics, Tikkun believes, they cannot simply increase the number of casual references to religion and morality they include in their platforms. Rather, liberals and progressives must find a way to offer profound solutions to Americans’ spiritual concerns, answers more compelling than the Right’s habitual appeals to blind patriotism and the protection of narrowly defined, traditional family values.

Genuine efforts on the part of liberals in this direction would find an eager reception, Tikkun, PCG, and others hope, not just among under-represented liberal Christians, but in some unexpected quarters as well.

Changing Constituencies

Proponents of the spiritual left have potential allies not just among swing voters who approach politics in terms of morality and values, but even among certain core constituents of the Religious Right.

Increasingly, hard-line evangelicals are coming to believe that environmentalism or “creation care” is a duty ordained by God for Christians. Others are rethinking their attitudes toward poverty and economic justice in America in light of changing interpretations of Christ’s message. Simultaneously, these conservative Christians are re-evaluating their allegiance to a Republican Party rocked by moral failures and scandals.

Major evangelical leaders such as Reverend Richard Cizik, vice president of the 45,000-church strong National Association of Evangelicals, have come out strongly in favor of environmentalist agendas.

In an interview with NPR in December, Rev. Cizik went so far as to say that disagreements about global warming, poverty, and other issues could provoke evangelicals to break with the Republican Party.

The results of the mid-term elections, which saw significant numbers of evangelicals voting Democrat, may be a foretaste of such a trend. Evangelicals who support creation care remain suspicious of liberals and “hippie” environmentalists, but the massive debates about environmentalism and poverty within evangelical circles reveal the existence of intense generational, political, and theological splits inside a group whose social and political cohesion formerly seemed impregnable.

Meanwhile, conservative non-Evangelical denominations like Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists have been caught up in divisive internal debates about homosexuals and abortion. And many religious people of all political persuasions are changing their minds about the merits of the war in Iraq, especially as American – and Iraqi – casualties continue to mount.

Again, it is unlikely that cynical liberal attempts to include a veneer of religious sensibilities could attract support from conservative religious Americans. But perhaps the genuine soul-searching that is going on within certain quarters on the Right – and the Left – means that the creation of entirely new political configurations is possible.

The Ideological and Organizational Potential

After the Democrats narrowly lost the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, liberals asked themselves some frustrating questions: Why had middle class Republican voters in “red states” voted against their own economic interest for the party of corporate power and big business? Why was the chasm between blue and red states – or rather, blue and red state “mentalities” – so broad in the first place? And why had the Republican Party been able to manifest such a higher degree of cohesion and organization when the Democrats seemed incapable of creating basic unity within their own ranks?

The Democratic congressional victories in November showed that a majority of Americans are, for the moment, interested in a more liberal vision of how America should be governed. Interested, but cautiously so.

Formerly Republican voters turned to the Democrats only when the neoconservative agenda had revealed itself – largely through the dismal failure of its “crusade” in Iraq – as stymied.

Moreover, many of the Democratic congressmen and women elected in November were so centrist in outlook that various commentators declared that the Democratic Party had moved definitively away from the “liberal” Clinton years.

While successful in the short term, the centrist strategy has a number of dangers for the long-term stability of the Left, not the least of which is that the move toward the center erases political difference, leaving Americans with even less of an idea of what a “liberal” party really stands for.

The possibilities of a liberal spiritual politics, however, suggest that the path toward the center is not the only one that can win new supporters. And the organizational power that churches and other religious organizations represents, in terms of getting out the vote, does not necessarily have to remain exclusively the province of the Right. If churches like the Unitarians, Quakers, and UCC, as well as groups like Tikkun, PCG, and Sojourners, found a way to broaden their influence into a mass movement and work effectively with secular liberals, such a movement could have tremendous political force.

Boldly proclaiming its values of justice, equality, and democracy, and communicating the moral and spiritual arguments underlying these values to people who approach politics through the lens of religion, would offer liberals and progressives a different, superior path to political victory – and to the achievement of social reform and progress – than the centrist strategy.

This message would help to build new alliances, injecting a breath of fresh air into the stale two-party tug-of-war that leaves most voters dissatisfied. It would also, by tapping into the networks of groups like Tikkun, Protestants for the Common Good, Sojourners, and liberal churches like the Unitarians and the United Church of Christ, combine well with new strategies of online campaigning to provide a fortified and innovative way of getting out the vote and communicating liberal platforms to the people who most need to hear and consider them.

And reclaiming a position of moral integrity and spiritual authority might allow the Left to do what America so badly needs it to do: speak out strongly against unjust wars, shameless government corruption, and corporate exploitation of the American government and people – and, finally, knock the Right from its pedestal as America’s sole moral authority.

To understand such unprecedented wealth accumulation amidst such deplorable citizenship requires delving into the structure and legal history of corporations. By definition corporations are, in essence, legal entities formed and owned by individuals whose legal existence is distinct from that of the corporation itself.

This distinction between the company and the people behind the company is vital. It endows the modern American corporation with limited liability and perpetual life. Limited liability makes shareholders financially responsible for only what they own of the corporation, meaning they cannot lose more than they initially put in. Perpetual life lets a corporation’s lifespan endure beyond those of its shareholders.

The crux of modern corporate power boils down to a simple, but crucial notion of “personhood” a philosophical and legal concept developed over the years to make those distinct legal entities actually distinct legal “people.”

It does not take a rocket scientist to observe that corporations are not really people. Not only, as eloquently noted by an English baron, have corporations “no soul to save and no body to incarcerate,” but they are designed and they function purely to produce profits. Profit-maximization is the only purpose a corporation is legally allowed to have, and wherever it is legal, these profits must come before any other societal interest.It is these qualities that have prompted some scholars to observe that corporate personhood is a perverse notion, if only (as famously argued by Canadian lawyer Joel Bakan) because its structural abandonment of morals, obligatory greed, sense of immortality, and immunity from feeling loss make the corporate person a medical psychopath. Real people do not benefit from limited liability and perpetual life. To the contrary, our physical and moral fears and limitations temper human behavior, a crucial mechanism that keeps most of us from murdering, exploiting, or polluting until the end of time.

Revolutionary

When did the corporation become a person?

Sociologist Charles Derber, author of Corporation Nation, is quick to point out that the earliest corporations were not considered persons, but rather democracy-serving tools of the government. Following the American Revolution, the newly-formed United States government made provisions for joint-stock companies similar to those commissioned by the Tudor and Stuart monarchs of England, though it clearly stipulated that charters only be issued for projects that worked toward the public interest. Derber writes, “the charters in most states put rigid strictures on how a corporation could exist, what it could do, and how many assets it could accumulate: They also outlined specific ways in which corporations were obliged to serve the public interest.”

In a sense, a corporate charter was a gift from the government. Multiple individuals could combine their resources to form a distinct legal entity that had special privileges. By pooling their wealth, the shareholders of these joint-stock companies could invest and profit at levels greater than they could as individuals, all while assuming limited risk.

In exchange for absolving individuals of liability, a government charter obliged a corporation to work in the public interest — for example, to build a bridge, to create a university, or to explore new lands. Corporate activities were often time-limited and firmly restricted to the business for which they were chartered, with violations prompting revocation.

In the latter half of the 19th century, however, corporate entrepreneurs sought to unbound corporations from these limitations. Derber reports a philosophical shift during which politicians, judges, intellectuals and, above all, businessman began viewing corporations as spontaneous “natural” entities, rather than artificial, commissioned ones. Harnessing the lingering American spirit of free enterprise, expanding Constitutional guarantees to citizens, and protection against the state, the pro-corporate movement sought a status for these natural entities tantamount to citizenship. Rather than behold them to their charters, personhood would allow corporations Constitutional rights to everything from the pursuit of happiness and free speech to freedom from unlawful searches.

Birthday

Corporate personhood was legally realized in the 1886 Supreme Court case, Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company. In the mid 1800s Santa Clara County levied land taxes against Southern Pacific Railroad, which for six years refused to pay them on the grounds that they were being taxed differently from everyone else in California.

The case went to the US Supreme Court because Southern Pacific argued that corporations were legal “persons” owed equal protection from the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled in Southern Pacific’s favor. However, the verdict in the Santa Clara case has remained a source of confusion and contention for over 100 years. Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad, it turns out, has its own fascinating tale of error, deceit, and dubious judgment.

According to Thom Hartmann, author of Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights, the Court did not base its decision on the question of corporate personhood. Court records indicate that before closing arguments Chief Justice Morrison Waite refused to hear arguments on whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause applied to corporations, adding, “We are all of the opinion that it does.”

The Justices’ actual ruling in Santa Clara, announced later, was based on a technicality of the defense’s argument, (who did the appraising, rather than “who” was the appraised), a technicality that did not rely on the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations as persons.

In fact, the official ruling explicitly stated that the Court was not ruling on the question of corporate personhood.

That the Santa Clara case was recorded and henceforth cited as legal precedent for corporate personhood appears due to an erroneous transcription by court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis. After the case’s conclusion, Davis wrote in the headnotes of the case his own commentary — that “corporations are persons,” as was unofficially discussed prior to the actual ruling. These headnotes were historically, and mistakenly, treated as the ruling itself. (A later, unrelated Supreme Court ruling determined that headnotes cannot be considered the Court’s ruling.)

Despite the fact that the official ruling steered clear of the question of corporate personhood, scholars have speculated as to why Judge Waite claimed the Court already accepted its validity. Many cite an 1882 Supreme Court case also concerning Southern Pacific, in which testimony was heard that the original drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment (i.e. the 39th U.S. Congress) intended for the word “person” to eventually be applied to corporations. In this case Roscoe Conkling, a former Republican Congressman who took part in writing the Amendment, submitted his personal diary from the drafting process as evidence that its authors wanted the word to be a loophole for corporations, although later legal scholars determined that Conkling lied before the Court and was working for the railroads to help them gain personhood status.

Returning to 1886, though the reasons for Waite’s comments may never be clear, what is clear is that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed primarily to protect newly-freed slaves from legal discrimination not to protect corporations from government regulation. In weighing the moral vigor of the Santa Clara verdict, Hartmann also notes that three of the Justices who ruled in favor of Southern Pacific also infamously ruled in Plessy v Ferguson (1896) that racial segregation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Despite Waite’s comments and Davis’s headnotes, there is no evidence that any Supreme Court or any Congress ever actually ruled on the question of corporate personhood. As Hartmann writes:

No laws were passed by Congress granting that corporations should be treated the same under the Constitution as living, breathing human beings, and none have been passed since then. It was not a concept drawn from older English law. No court decisions, state or federal, held that corporations were ‘persons’ instead of ‘artificial persons.’ The Supreme Court did not rule, in this case or any case, on the issue of corporate personhood.

Frontiersman

To be sure, the corporation has been a central feature in American and Western economic innovation, expansion, and leadership. Like patents and bankruptcy, the corporate mechanism encourages private entities to pursue scientific and technological advances by offering would-be inventors and entrepreneurs huge financial rewards for success and financial protection from failure. This paradigm of maximum commercial and creative freedom with minimal personal liability has given countless Americans leave to take risks and succeed, giving rise to the country’s epic economic growth and high living standards.

But when the reality of modern corporate power so overwhelmingly surpasses that of voters or elected officials, its freedom becomes excessive.

The corporation’s unique legal status affords it the same Constitutional rights originally given to citizens to protect them from, among other things, monolith undemocratic entities. And yet they are legally obligated to serve the financial interests of their shareholders before any other interest, be it social or environmental. Corporate expenditures seeking to correct what might be perceived as moral transgressions (slashing employee benefits, employing sweatshop labor, contracting with despots, or deforesting, to name a few) are often illegal if they cut into company profits. Milton Friedman himself, the Nobel Prize-winning champion of free enterprise, declared the growing trend of corporate social responsibility and corporate giving, objectionable on business grounds because it detracts from the rights of shareholders to profit.

What’s more, the corporate legal structure affords owners (i.e. shareholders) and operators (i.e. executives) an extraordinary degree of legal protection in the event of social or environmental injustice, such as death, personal injury, or waste dumping. Though they make the decisions of the corporate “person,” there exist few legal avenues by which these people can be prosecuted for crimes committed by corporations.

(The corporate watchdog Multinational Monitor reports in its list of the world’s Top Ten Corporate Criminals of the 1990s, an average of $24 million per company in fines over ten years for such offenses as environmental damage, campaign finance, bribery, and worker death. This list only includes the companies that pled guilty or no contest to charges, indicating that where laws exist to control their transgressions, they found it more profitable to violate them and pay than to prevent or stop their illegal activities.)

Striptease

Scholars of corporate history have observed the irony in the fact that the United States, which was largely explored, founded, and built with publicly-accountable corporate charters, ultimately became the birthplace of the modern private corporate power that has eroded democracy and transparency.

Equal irony lies in their more recent history, when corporations were absolved of their public accountability in a Supreme Court decision that is at best worthy of reconsideration and at worst a complete lie.

Corporate personhood is among the US’s most dangerous inventions, upheld and cloaked by its most noble Constitutional reform the Amendment aimed at bringing all other Constitutional protections to the nation least empowered citizens.

Would revoking corporate personhood, and thus reforming corporate charters, bring about the collapse of America’s economic wealth? This depends on the individuals who make up corporate leadership – whether they are willing to take back their public accountability and do business on a level playing field. In such a scenario companies like Exxon Mobil and Wal-Mart would still be allowed to form, enterprise, and profit. However, their combined $50 billion profits would come second to the rights of employees to make living wages, the rights of customers to choose where their products come from, and the rights of all Earth’s inhabitants to not suffer global warming.

What would it mean to have corporations stripped of their personhood? Regardless of how one views the Supreme Court’s decision to equate money to free speech (because the rich have more to say?), what would happen if the corporate person hadn’t the Constitutional right to drown out those citizens whose financial “voices” could never be as big? What would it mean if executives and shareholders were held personally responsible for the loss of human life and environmental degradation at the “hands” of their company if contaminated drinking water, radioactive leaks, and oil spills were of obligatory concern to the human decision-makers inside the corporate person’s “head?”

Until the most powerful person in the land is no longer a profit-maximizing, Constitutionally-protected, unelected corporation, then business in America will have no moral beyond making money.

1. Exhibit professionalism in our respectful treatment of all persons and viewpoints, including those our authors disagree with vehemently.
2. Maintain impeccable standards of spelling and grammar (except through the deliberate use of slang to better communicate meaning).
3. Use sources responsibly.
4. Not only report current events to our readership, but also reflect on the meaning and historical context of these events.

Through our professionalism, we’re trying to hold the media to a higher standard. You’ll find no hysteria here, nor Bush-bashing, nor hype and propaganda. Rather, you’ll find authors thinking through issues and presenting their analyses in a clear, well-reasoned, and informative manner.

In that spirit, we bring you, tomorrow, our debut issue for 2007.

Revolving around the theme of the “spiritual left” - the idea that religion and morality are just as much the province of liberals as conservatives - the articles in our February issue explore themes such as organizations and changing constituencies, politics of consumption, and the religious issues involved with the spread of American consumer culture throughout the world. Finally, a related article addresses the frightening power of “corporate personhood,” a legal fiction that underlies the power of large corporations in American public and private life. All in all, the February issue offers food for thought not just on ‘what is going on’ in American politics today, but also on the structures and cultural shifts that lie just beneath the surface of American politics.

We hope you enjoy our February issue and find the articles informative and provocative. Frequent posting on a variety of topics will continue throughout the month, and we’ll see you for our next issue in March.