A Dream Denied? At Least Deferred

Hi, Gentle Readers.  Some of you know that ever since I stopped academic teaching and began working for various peace groups (especially Every Church a Peace Church from 2002-2006), I have had a dream for founding  & editing a Journal of Peace Theology for pastors and scholars, aimed at the kinds of audiences which would read Theology Today, Interpretation, Evangelical Quarterly, Modern Theology or Review and Expositor.  It wouldn’t be as “newsy” as Sojourners, Christianity Today, or The Christian Century, but it would be much less technical than the Journal of Biblical Literature or Catholic Biblical Quarterly.  This journal would concentrate on various aspects of Christian nonviolence as it relates to overall Christian theology. I was seeking an international board and international contributors from numerous Christian denominations: theologians, biblical scholars, ethicists, philosophers, and nonviolent activists and pastors who are theologically informed. 

Well, from July ’07 until tonight it looked as if that dream was on the verge of becoming reality.  There was a funding proposal for 5 years and I would have begun on 01 January ’08 to lay out a first issue and seek contributors.  I was considering how far back I would have to scale my work on this blog or whether even to shut it down altogether and get someone else to host the Christian Peace Bloggers ring (which is very little work).  Alas, it is not to be.  The organization which was going to host the journal received a fraction of its proposed funding.  If the journal is launched, it will have to be when this organization gets additional funding or when I find another funding source.

I am deeply disappointed.  I was going to work full time on the editing of this journal and I deeply believe that such a resource is needed and could be an incredible resource for the transformation of the global church in the 21st C.  On a personal level, this arrangement would have allowed me more time with my family, would have allowed the fiscal and time resources to rejoin the Society of Christian Ethics and participate in their yearly meetings (something I have greatly missed for 5 years, now), and would have enabled me to visit parts of my scattered family that I have been unable to visit for some time.  None of that will now happen–not this year.

I will have to regroup and try something else.  Frederick Buechner says that we find our calling where our passion intersects with the world’s great need.  But I have been unable to follow such a call either in the classroom, in faith-based peacemaking, or in writing.  I am now middle aged and not using my gifts for the work of God’s Rule–at least not in anything approaching a full way.  It is frustrating in the extreme.

Tonight, I go back to a job which keeps my family fed (along with my wife’s 2 jobs!) and pays for our healthcare and other benefits, but which could be done by trained gorillas, is mind-numbing, and soul destroying. Tomorrow, I will look at my resume, look at book proposals for publishers, and try again.  

The good news for those of you who find this blog useful is that it is in no danger of being shut down in the near future. It is my only regular creative outlet and keeps me sane.

L’shalom/Salaam/Eirene/Pax–Peace.

Will Democrats Achieve A Filibuster Proof Senate Majority in ’08?

The focus of most political commentary in the U. S. just now  is on the presidential race.  But the Congressional races, especially the races for the U.S. Senate, are looking just as interesting.  Currently, the Democrats have a technical 1-vote majority in the Senate. It’s a technical majority because 2 senators, Sanders (I-VT) and Lieberman (I-CT) are Independants who caucus with the Dems–and Lieberman’s such a hawk, he might as well be a Republican.  So, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been able to enforce party discipline on moderate Republicans and keep Democrats from getting the 60 votes needed to stop filibusters and to override presidential vetoes–thus, preventing Democrats from forcing an end to the war except by cutting off funding–something they are reluctant to do.

A 1 vote majority is fragile and Republicans would love to regain control over the Senate, just as Democrats hope to gain greater majorities that can accomplish more.  Here’s the rub.  Under the U.S. system, although EVERY member of the House of Representatives has to run for re-election every 2 years, senators serve 6 year terms–and only a third are up for reelection at any time.   Usually, this means that any large shifts in the Senate are difficult to accomplish: That is why Democrats retained control of the Senate in ’94 (“Year of the Republican!”) when the GOP not only took over the House for the first time in 50 years, but did so in a way so decisive as to make GOP bigwigs like Tom Delay dream of a “permanent Republican majority.”  The difficulties in major Senate shake-ups is also why in ’06, when all winds were blowing in the Democrats’ favor, they only managed to secure a 1 seat majority (and that was more than even most Democrats dared hope)!

But ’08 could be one of those rare years of Senate shake-ups.  While nothing is ever guaranteed (unless voting machines are rigged as the GOP tried in ’02, ’04, and ’06), the landscape is looking pretty bleak for Senate Republicans for several reasons–many of which are beyond their control.  If the Dems pick up a net gain of 9 Senate seats (10 in case Lieberman switches to Republican or caucuses with the GOP–as he already votes with them on Iraq!), they get a super-majority of 60.  That means, if all 60 Democratic members vote the same way, the GOP could not filibuster or block Senate legislation (not even appointee confirmations). Further, with 60 Senate votes (plus 2/3 of the House), they can even override vetoes by a Republican president.  A 9-10 seat pickup would be extremely difficult, but it is a real possibility for several reasons:

• The biggest structural problem for the GOP is that in ’08 22 U.S. Senate seats up for reelection are currently held by Republicans, whereas the Democrats only have to defend 10 seats. 
• Several GOP members are quite elderly and considering retirement.  So far, 3 Republican Senators have announced retirements: Wayne Allard (R-CO), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and John Warner (R-VA).  Open seats are naturally more vulnerable than seats with incumbents.  Then there is the Larry Craig (R-ID) soap opera over alleged solicitation of gay sex in a public restroom. If he retires, Idaho’s Republican governor will appoint a Republican replacement, but he will have to campaign in ’08. Idaho is a very “Red” (i.e., GOP) state, but a strong Democratic contender could force the GOP to spend time and money defending a seat in Idaho that they need for more vulnerable seats elsewhere.  Other Republican Senators rumored to be considering retirement are: Ted Stevens (R-AK) who is under federal investigation for bribery; Thad Cocheran (R-MS); Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)–not as likely, in my opinion; Pete Domenici (R-NM).
• A death is always tragic.  There are no exceptions, in my view.  But there is no question that the unexpected death of Sen. Thomas Craig (R-WY) of leukemia on 04 June ’07 gave a huge opening to Democrats.  Wyoming is a very conservative state (it’s VP Cheney’s home state!) and its governor appointed John Barrasso (R-WY) to serve until the next election cycle. So, BOTH Wyoming’s Republican held Senate seats are up for grabs in ’08.  You can bet the Dems will pull out all the stops to try to pick up at least one of them, though the GOP is helped because Wyoming law demands that each candidate specify which seat they are contesting.
• Currently, anger over the Iraq war is at all time highs and the Republicans are getting the bulk of the blame for Iraq.
• That anger is strongest in some of the areas where Republicans are weakest as the population is turning more Democratic–e.g., New England, where both Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) are in for the fights of their political lives.  Every time Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) twists their arms to keep voting for the Bush positions on the war, their chances of losing their seats to strong challengers increases.
• As in ’06, GOP scandals are making seats that were previously considered “safe” suddenly vulnerable to strong challengers.  1. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is under federal investigation for campaign irregularities. Alabama is a VERY conservative state, so unless Sessions is indicted, he may be able to weather the storm.  So far, the only Democrat to announce is State Sen. Vivian Figures (D) from the 33rd District (Mobile). Figures is an African-American woman in her first national race in a VERY Republican state (and one which is still very racist), so her chances aren’t good unless Sessions’ scandal story grows to the point of huge public disgust. 2. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), already rumored to be considering retirement is now under federal investigation for bribery! Several strong, well-liked Democrats are considering entering this race.  3. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), as mentioned above. 4. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), normally an extremely powerful incumbent, is suspected of involvement in several scandals related to KY’s Governor Ernie Fletcher (R-KY), a McConnell protege. His approval rating is below 50% for the first time since he won his Senate seat. 
• Surprisingly, the GOP has not done well this year in recruiting strong challengers for Democratic held Senate seats, but Democratic recruitment for challenges to GOP seats is looking stronger every day.  There is still time left for the Republicans, but they cannot afford any delay.
• And then there is the odd case of South Carolina, where the GOP seems determined to hurt itself.  South Carolina is an extremely conservative state and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is very rightwing and a darling of the GOP base–who has mostly avoided scandals.  Yet, because Graham voted for Bush’s “comprehensive reform” plan for immigration, large sections of the Republican base are abandoning him.  He is facing not 1 but 3 challengers in the GOP primaries.  They won’t win, but they could force Graham to have to spend time and money getting re-nominated that he would need in a general election.  If the Dems recruit a strong, conservative Blue Dog Democrat as a challenger cut from the same mold as Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) or Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA), they might have an outside chance at this seat–and, if they even make it a close race, they are still taking GOP money and energy to defend a seat that should have been safe.  The GOP cannot afford such distractions in ’08.

 I think it almost certain that the Democrats will increase their Senate majority by a minimum of 5 seats, but to get the 10 necessary for filibuster and veto proof majority will be very difficult.  However, if the Republicans keep making it easier, who knows?  Here in Kentucky, we face the difficult task of trying to unseat Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the powerful Sen. Minority Leader. Normally, that would be impossible, but McConnell’s role as “obstructionist in chief” over the Iraq war has angered many and his behind the scenes roles in several scandals involving Gov. Fletcher (R-KY) has brought his approval rating to under 50% for the first time since his initial election and his campaign apparatus in the state has also been damaged.  So, with a strong challenger (I am hoping for Andrew Horne, a Louisville attorney and Iraq war veteran), we just might pull it off.

One Nation Under Surveillance

See the excellent speech by that title that Rev. Dr. Bruce Prescott gave at the University of Oklahoma for Constitution Day, yesterday.  Well done, Bruce!