Jesse Helms (October 18, 1921-July 4, 2008)

The AP has reported that Senator Jesse Helms has died. It’s ironic that he passed away on July 4, for he was definitely a patriot.

I have written about him a little more extensively in my post, Righteous Warrior, by William A. Link, in which I discuss Link’s biography of this controversial Senator.

A lot of my readers won’t like this little eulogy, since they view Helms as a racist and a race-baiter. They’re entitled to their opinion. I’m not going to claim for one second that I agree with everything Jesse Helms did (assuming we have all the facts about that in the first place). And that reminds me: I still want to review Bruce Bartlett’s book on the historical racism of the Democratic Party (Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, and LBJ included).

But I do feel a need to honor Jesse. When I was a young lad learning about politics, I was beginning to identify with the conservative end of the political spectrum. And I noticed something as I looked at Senate votes and roll-calls: a lot of amendments and legislation that I liked bore his name. Pro-life legislation. Pro-school prayer legislation. So I guess that’s how I first heard the name “Jesse Helms.”

But he was just a name on a list to me until I had a discussion with my junior high school social studies teacher, who was a liberal. I had written a paper defending the South African government (see “Where Were You During Apartheid?” and James the Afrikaaner? for details), and he wanted to discuss it with me during our lunch hour. I had read a lot of John Birch literature, so I tended to call all sorts of people Communists, including our one-worlder President at the time, President George Herbert Walker Bush.

“Well, Jesse Helms says Bush is doing a good job. Is Jesse Helms a Communist?,” my teacher asked. “Yes,” I said. “Oh, come on! Jesse Helms is the most anti-Communist guy in the world!”

And indeed he was, though not always in the conventional sense. As a child, I enjoyed reading the Opposing Viewpoints series, for it featured articles from both sides of various issues. One book from that series was Central America, which discussed Reagan’s anti-Communist policies in the region. One article was entitled, “U.S. Is Promoting Democracy in Central America.” For that, the editors used a stirring speech by President Reagan–I believe the one in which he called the Nicaraguan contras “the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.” To my surprise, however, the article “U.S. Is Not Promoting Democracy in Central America” was a speech by Jesse Helms. I would’ve expected them to quote a liberal rather than Jesse Helms, but, apparently, he too had problems with the Reagan Administration’s policies. He supported the more right-wing elements of El Salvador, viewing them as a better bulwark against Communism than the moderate forces we were financing. And, if memory serves me correctly, he also thought that Violeta Chamorro of Nicaragua was too left-wing.

I appreciated Jesse Helms whenever he made the news. One thing that made him a household name was his opposition to the National Endowment for the Arts, a federal agency that was using our tax dollars to fund smut and blasphemy (even child pornography, if I remember correctly). I recall Murphy Brown sarcastically asking, “Do you think Jesse Helms would consider Picasso fit to frame?” People accused Jesse Helms of supporting censorship and trampling all over the First Amendment, but that wasn’t true. For him, the First Amendment allows artists to paint and photograph whatever they want. But it does not require us to pay for it.

His stance on AIDS was also controversial, and he changed his mind on that when he became older. I remember him criticizing funding for AIDS research because he said that homosexuals brought it on themselves through their “disgusting, revolting behavior.” I could see his point, somewhat. There are all sorts of diseases that are out there, including cystic fibrosis. Why should AIDS research get so much money? And homosexual behavior was a big factor in the spread of the AIDS virus. Facts are not always politically-correct, but they’re true!

But I admire how he united with Bono to fight the disease. Part of that flowed from his compassionate heart. Part of it may have been because he knew he would die eventually and wanted God’s favor (even though he as a Baptist probably believed in free grace). And he was getting up there in years. I was actually expecting to write this eulogy pretty soon!

I had Jesse Helms’ autographed picture. When I was at DePauw University, my liberal poli sci professor was bashing Jesse Helms. The next morning, I put my Jesse Helms picture to my face, walked into my professor’s office, and said with a fake Southern drawl, “Aah heard you were criticizing me yesterday!” My professor didn’t laugh. He just said, “I can’t believe you can support that fascist.” He still wrote me a good letter of recommendation for Harvard, though!

Some of you may like Jesse Helms. Some of you may hate him. But I as a conservative feel a need to honor him, for he spend much of his life fighting for the conservative cause.

Obama on Reagan’s Foreign Policy, WMDs, and Democracy

I just finished Obama’s chapter on foreign policy in Audacity of Hope (“The World Beyond Our Borders”). There are many things that I can say about several of Obama’s points. But, today, I want to focus on four of his statements: two about Reagan’s foreign policy, one about Iraq’s WMDs, and one about the U.S. promoting democracy throughout the world.

On Reagan’s Foreign Policy.

“Looming perhaps largest of all was Ronald Reagan, whose clarity about communism seemed matched by his blindness regarding other sources of misery in the world. In personally came of age during the Reagan presidency–I was studying international affairs at Columbia, and later working as a community organizer in Chicago–and like many Democrats in those days I bemoaned the effect of Reagan’s policies toward the Third World: his administration’s support for the apartheid regime of South Africa, the funding of El Salvador’s death squads, the invasion of tiny, hapless Grenada” (289).

I discuss apartheid in two of my posts, “Where Were You During Apartheid?” and James the Afrikaaner?, to which I refer curious readers. Regarding El Salvador, Reagan supported the moderate elements in that country, not the extreme right-wingers conducting the death squads. That was where Jesse Helms and the Reagan Administration disagreed: Jesse favored the right-wingers as a bulwark against Communism.

I can at least comprehend Obama’s criticisms of South Africa and El Salvador. But I can’t for the life of me understand why he’d oppose the invasion of Grenada. In that nation, a bunch of Marxist thugs overthrew the (already Marxist) government in a coup. And, through no fault of their own, there were American medical students who were caught in the middle of that chaos. So Reagan invaded Grenada to keep them safe. What was wrong with that?

Obama’s next paragraph is a lot better:

“But at times, in arguments with some of my friends on the left, I would find myself in the curious positions of defending aspects of Reagan’s worldview. I didn’t understand why, for example, progressives should be less concerned about oppression behind the Iron Curtain than they were about brutality in Chile. I couldn’t be persuaded that U.S. multinationals and international terms of trade were single-handedly responsible for poverty around the world; nobody forced corrupt leaders in Third World countries to steal from their people. I might have arguments with the size of Reagan’s military buildup, but given the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, staying ahead of the Soviets militarily seemed a sensible thing to do. Pride in our country, respect for our armed services, a healthy appreciation for the dangers beyond our borders, an insistence that there was no easy equivalence between East and West–in all this I had no quarrel with Reagan. And when the Berlin wall came tumbling down, I had to give the old man his due, even if I never gave him my vote” (289).

I agree with much of this. Communism was bad, Reagan was right to stand up to it, a strong military was important during the Cold War, the West is not solely responsible for the world’s ills, and foreign aid can easily find its way down a rat-hole (as we’re seeing right now in Myanmar). Of course, had I been voting in the 1980′s, Reagan would’ve gotten my vote. But I voted for him in my second grade “election” back in 1984, so perhaps that counts.

On WMDs in Iraq.

“Like most analysts, I assumed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear arms. I believed that he had repeatedly flouted UN resolutions and weapons inspectors and that such behavior had to have consequences. That Saddam butchered his own people was undisputed; I had no doubt that the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

“What I sensed, though, was that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent, the Administration’s rationale for war were flimsy and ideologically driven, and the war in Afghanistan was far from complete. And I was certain that by choosing precipitous, unilateral military action over the hard slog of diplomacy, coercive inspections, and smart sanctions, America was missing an opportunity to build a broad base of support for its policies” (294).

Obama often cites his 2002 opposition to the Iraq War as a sign of his good judgment. But, after reading this quote, I’m not so sure. Okay, in 2002, he believed that Iraq was evading UN weapons inspectors and actually possessed chemical and biological weapons, in violation of UN resolutions. And his proposal at that time was more inspections and sanctions? Within his own mindset, he should not have arrived at that conclusion. If Iraq had evaded weapons inspections and possessed big-time weapons even after Clinton’s sanctions, as Obama supposed, then doesn’t that show that inspections and sanctions didn’t work? I mean, we’re talking about logic here: if A and B are true, then that entails C. So Obama’s premises should have led him to support the Iraq War.

Also, if Obama thought that Iraq and the world were better off without Saddam, then what was wrong with Bush II getting rid of him?

On Promoting Democracy throughout the World.

“Of course, there are those who will argue with my starting premise–that any global system built in America’s image can alleviate misery in poorer countries. For these critics, America’s notion of what the international system should be–free trade, open markets, the unfettered flow of information, the rule of law, democratic elections, and the like–is simply an expression of American imperialism, designed to exploit the cheap labor and natural resources of other countries and infect non-Western cultures with decadent beliefs. Rather than conform to America’s rules, the argument goes, other countries should resist America’s efforts to expand its hegemony; instead, they should follow their own path to hegemony, taking their lead from left-leaning populists like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, or turning to more traditional principles of social organization, like Islamic law…

“Ultimately…I think critics are wrong to think that the world’s poor will benefit by rejecting the ideals of free markets and liberal democracy. When human rights activists from various countries come to my office and talk about being jailed or tortured for their beliefs, they are not acting as agents for American power. When my cousin in Kenya complains that it’s impossible to find work unless he’s paid a bribe to some official in the ruling party, he hasn’t been brainwashed by Western ideas. Who doubts that, if given the choice, most of the people in North Korea would prefer living in South Korea, or that many in Cuba wouldn’t mind giving Miami a try?

“No person, in any culture, likes to be bullied. No person likes living in fear because his or her ideas are different. Nobody likes being poor or hungry, and nobody likes living under an economic system in which the fruits of his or her labor go perpetually unrewarded” (315-316).

That’s why I don’t like statements like “Muslims are not suited for democracy,” or “People under Saddam were happy. Who were we to overthrow him?” Sure, there are people who actually prefer authoritarianism–usually the authorities, but also those who like order more than freedom. But there is also a hunger for liberty in all cultures.

Obama doesn’t say that we should overthrow all dictators by military force. (That would be quite a task!) Rather, he prefers methods such as inspiration, international agreements (yes, he’s quite the globalist, even though he at one point criticizes the Security Council’s veto), foreign aid, the bully pulpit, and economic and diplomatic pressure. I agree with the inspiration part. That’s what Reagan did when he gave hope to the people of Eastern Europe! And diplomatic pressure worked on countries such as El Salvador, perhaps even Chile. (Communism wasn’t the only force that fell under Reagan, but so did right-wing dictatorships.) But there may be times when we should support democratic movements with military aid, as Reagan did for the Nicaraguan contras. There may need to be teeth to our pro-freedom rhetoric. Obama should have mentioned that.

Billy James Hargis on Segregation

I had a slightly hard time sleeping this morning, so I read a few chapters of Billy James Hargis‘ 1960 book, Communist America…Must It Be? Hargis was a right-wing evangelist whose popularity was at its heyday during the 1960′s. One of the chapters I read was “Communism and Racial Tension.”

I corresponded with Hargis when I was a kid. I was researching right-wing attitudes on Martin Luther King, Jr., and I was curious about his views on King, segregation, and the civil rights movement. Hargis said that he did not support segregation, since integration was the law of the land. But he was still critical of Martin Luther King.

I wish that he had sent me the book that I read this morning. I actually got that on Amazon about a year ago. (Amazon is amazing, isn’t it?)

Right-wing books are fun yet tedious. They’re fun because there’s a sense of drama to them. They have clear good guys and bad guys, though, unfortunately, the good guys usually lose (which is why we need to vote for Goldwater or donate money to the John Birch Society, or Hargis‘ Christian Crusade). And, interestingly, the people society labels as “good” and “bad” are usually depicted quite differently in these books. FDR is a socialist dictator. Joe McCarthy is a brave patriot. Growing up as a child and a teenager, I relished these books because they allowed me to challenge authority, in this case, my history teachers, the media, and the narrative that they presented to me.

But the books can be tedious because they’re very well-documented. Don’t let anyone tell you that right-wing pamphlets lack any basis in research! They have lots of quotations from politicians and mainstream news outlets. None Dare Call It Treason is replete with footnotes. Unfortunately, however, I don’t usually have the ability to verify whether or not they’re quoting their sources accurately, since they are pretty old books.

Hargis‘ argument on race is more or less the same spiel that Jesse Helms had as a commentator. Let me quote from my latest post on Helms:

“As a media commentator, [Helms] was critical of the civil rights movement, Brown v. the Board of Education, and civil rights legislation…Yet, he did not view himself as a racist. He thought that African-Americans actually liked segregation, and that all these outsider activists were agitating the situation. For him, whites and blacks could arrive at a mutual solution to racial conflict, without agitation or outside federal interference.” Add to that the idea that Communists were behind the racial agitation, and you have Hargis‘ position.

Hargis opens his chapter as follows: “From Birmingham, on September 1, 1959, the Southern Negro Improvement Association of Alabama sent a 350-word telegram to President Eisenhower indicating that most Southern Negro[e]s don’t want forced integration. The group asked for a government-sponsored poll of Southern Negroes to prove the point.”

That actually checks out, or (more accurately) it doesn’t appear implausible. I did a Google search on “The Southern Negro Improvement Association of Alabama,” and one of the links was The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. – Google Books Result. There, we read that King disapproved of a speech by Dr. Collier P. Clay, a seminary president. Clay’s speech condoned segregation, and he gave it at an event sponsored by the Southern Negro Improvement Association of Alabama.

Hargis also quotes Davis Lee, the African-American publisher of The Anderson Herald at Anderson, North Carolina. Lee praises the South for exposing blacks to Christianity, and he presents a friendlier relationship between whites and blacks in the South. “Because of the interest that Southern White people have in us,” Lee writes, “the Southern Negro owns more business, more homes, has finer schools, and controls more wealth than do the Negroes anywhere else in the world.”

In other parts of Hargis‘ chapter, however, we see that the picture is not entirely rosy. Hargis acknowledges that there are differences that whites and blacks in the South need to resolve. But he wants them to do so peacefully, without protests and agitation. Hargis also refers to an October 5, 1958 civil rights rally in Washington, D.C., which attracted thousands of whites and blacks. Hargis maintained that Communists were instigating tension between the races. The implication is that, if the Communists were not involved, whites and blacks would be content with their situation, or at least resolve their differences in a peaceful manner. But would thousands attend a civil rights rally because they’ve been misled by the Communists? I think they were protesting real problems.

Yet, Hargis does document that the Communist Party wanted to exploit racial tension. Manning Johnson was once on the National Negro Commission of the Communist Party in America. After he left the Party, he wrote Color, Communism and Common Sense, in which he discussed the Party’s goal of stirring up racial agitation. Johnson was critical of integration because he saw it as harmful to African-Americans. He wrote:

“The blind drive of Negroes for complete integration hurts Negro business because the Negro, bitten by the integration bug, will give all his business to white establishments. [Regarding integration of schools,] the whole issue boils down to taking Negro children out of one school and transferring them to another so they can be seated with white children on the assumption that only in this way will the Negro child get an education. What really is being implied is that the 113,000 Negro teachers in Southern schools are inferior, incompetent and unable to teach the children of their own race…it is a question of the liquidation of the Negro school and the Negro teacher under the guise of integration…”

This quote from Johnson reminds me of arguments against school busing that I’ve heard from African-Americans. For some African-Americans, busing undermines the African-American community. One African-American woman told me that, at one time, blacks lived together in communities and looked out for one another. If a black doctor lived near another black family, for example, he could mentor a child from that family on how to become a doctor. The community was that close. But busing undermined that by removing African-American children to far-off areas of the city, for long periods of time during the day. (The bus trip could be pretty hefty in itself!) As a result, a well-intentioned government mandate ended up disrupting the community it was designed to help.

One part of Johnson’s book that Hargis does not quote actually acknowledges the reality of racial discrimination. That’s what attracted Johnson to the Communist Party in the first place! Let him explain:

“Like other Negroes, I experienced and saw many injustices and inequities around me based upon color, not ability. I was told that ‘the decadent capitalist system is responsible,’ that ‘mass pressure’ could force concessions but ‘that just prolongs the life of capitalism’; that I must unite and work with all those who more or less agree that capitalism must go. Little did I realize until I was deeply enmeshed in the Red Conspiracy, that just and seeming grievances are exploited to transform idealism into a cold and ruthless weapon against the capitalist system–that this is the end toward which all the communist efforts among Negroes are directed.”

And so even one of Hargis‘ sources does not believe that the American South was a paradise. He just thought that Communist and liberal cures were themselves pretty deadly.

I’m not sure what to make of the Southern Negro Improvement Association of Alabama. There were African-Americans who actually condoned segregation (and they weren’t the Malcom X types)? Maybe they wanted to work within the system, thinking that protests would worsen their lot. I’m not sure what their motivation was.

Righteous Warrior, by William A. Link

I recently finished William Link’s Righteous Warrior: Jesse Helms and the Rise of Modern Conservatism (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008). I’ll be taking it back to the library tomorrow, so I want to write about it while I still have it with me.

This book didn’t knock my socks off, but I still enjoyed it. What is my impression of Jesse Helms now that I’ve read it? It’s mixed. And, ironically, the things that repel me are also the things that attract me. As I read the book, Helms struck me as self-righteous in the sense that he projected an attitude of “How dare you challenge me!” He sunk low in the political gutter in his attacks on his opponents. He could be somewhat of a bully, for he played a significant role in a well-funded conservative machine that tried to get its way, no matter what.

And, yet, his strong will is admirable. He didn’t care what anyone thought about him, even when he was in a tiny minority. He boldly challenged Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushes, and they all saw him as a force to be reckoned with. And, surprisingly, he got some legislative victories, often against heavy odds. He knew how to obstruct what he didn’t like, sneak in what he did like, and (more importantly, for him) force elected officials to take sides on controversial issues. And, on many occasions, because a lot of Americans are rather conservative, the side that the Senators chose was his. Jesse Helms was a one-man army.

Link’s prologue is telling. It’s entitled “The Two Faces of Jesse Helms.” Its thesis is that, although Helms is known as a hard-nosed conservative ideologue, he had a human side as well. A survey of 1,200 staffers and Capitol Hill employees rated him as one of the nicest Senators. He genuinely cared for his staffers, and he continually helped his North Carolina constituents, something even his political enemies admired. He viewed himself as a public servant, resisting many of the perks that came with being a Senator. Overall, he was a low-key guy. He was a tee-totaller, he loved Little House on the Prairie, and he was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. He even adopted a boy with cerebral palsy.

Probably what is most controversial about him is his record on race. His political friends were segregationists. As a media commentator, he was critical of the civil rights movement, Brown v. the Board of Education, and civil rights legislation. Critics accused him of using racist sub-texts in his political campaigns. Yet, he did not view himself as a racist. He thought that African-Americans actually liked segregation, and that all these outsider activists were agitating the situation. For him, whites and blacks could arrive at a mutual solution to racial conflict, without agitation or outside federal interference. While he voted against membership for a black man in his local church, he said that he had no problem worshipping with people of other races: he just didn’t like people coming in to start trouble. He related that he was friends with a lot of black people, particularly Capitol Hill employees. James Meredith served on his Senate staff for a time. And, through all of this, Helms said he couldn’t understand why a lot of African-Americans didn’t like him.

Overall, the book was liberal, yet respectful. It reminded me of Lou Cannon’s books on Reagan. Link disagreed with Helms on a variety of issues, and he pointed out errors in many of Helms’ statements and stories. He also depicted Helms as somewhat of a racist. Yet, he admired Helms’ political talent, tenacity, and tender humanity. One thing Helms wasn’t, and that’s boring.

The most touching part of the book relates to Helms’ relationship with Bono, the legendary U-2 musician. Bono was concerned about hunger and AIDS in Africa, and he took special care to reach out to conservative politicians, such as John Kasich and Jesse Helms. Several of Bono’s friends warned him about conservatives, but Bono’s stance about them was simple: they’re Christians, they follow Jesus, and so, of course, they’ll be concerned about the poor, the sick, and the outcast.

You couldn’t imagine two people who were more different: Helms, the old Senator who didn’t listen to rock music, and Bono, with his colorful clothing and sunglasses. But Bono told Helms about the suffering in Africa. In Bono’s recollection, Helms cried when he saw the pictures of starving children. That is not surprising, for Helms (like Reagan) was often quick to act when he became aware of an individual’s suffering. He opposed the Panamanian government, for example, after seeing pictures of someone who was tortured and killed in that country. “He’s a religious man,” Bono recalled, “so I told him that 2,103 verses of Scripture pertain to the poor and Jesus speaks of judgment only once–and it’s not about being gay or sexual morality, but about poverty.”

Still, Helms remained a conservative. He continued to oppose foreign aid that relied on inefficient bureaucracies and funneled the money to corrupt foreign governments. For Helms, giving the aid to private charities or directly to people who needed it was the better option. And Helms maintained his strong opposition to the homosexual lifestyle.

I admire Helms, whatever his flaws. And, yet, for me, the hero of the book is Bono. He chose to reach out to people who were different from him, appealing to what was good and noble in their own worldviews. And, in the process, numerous people in Africa got helped.

What’s Going On?

Every now and then, I will write a post about what is going on in my life. I’ll entitle it “What’s Going On?” If I can’t use the same title for more than one post, I’ll have “What’s Going On?” followed by a number.

Tonight is when I celebrate the Lord’s supper. My family observes it once a year on the night before Passover, which is when Jesus keeps it in the Gospel of John. Because I happen to have a few religion degrees under my belt, I will be leading it. It’s a small, intimate gathering of family and friends.

Am I worthy to partake of the Lord’s supper, let alone lead it? No. That’s why I take it. If I deserved God’s love, why would Christ come down to die? Wherever I am in my spiritual journey, I need Jesus Christ. And the Lord’s supper is a place where I remind myself of that.

In my opinion, contra many Armstrongites, Paul in I Corinthians 11 is not saying we have to be “worthy” to take the Lord’s supper. Who among us is? Rather, he’s criticizing the Corinthians for partaking of it in an unworthy manner. They fight with one another, disgrace the poor, and show up to it drunk. They need to examine themselves to make sure they know what the Lord’s supper is: a symbolic partaking of the body and blood of our Lord. This is a serious occasion.

My focus this evening will be on what Christ did for us, not so much what we can do for him. Christ humbled himself to the level of a servant that he might spiritually cleanse us for his kingdom. He offered his body to be bruised, beaten, lashed, and ultimately killed because he cared so much about our salvation. Just think of the Passion of the Christ! He wants to be with us. And, because he looks forward to fellowshipping with us, he is saving his consumption of wine for the supper at his return.

I’m hoping my dad is taping 7th Heaven, since this one has the dad from the Wonder Years. I’m somewhat of a Dan Lauria fan myself. But I set my timer just in case my dad forgets. He’ll be picking me up at 2, which is when it is on.

As I wait for him to come, I’ll be straightening up my apartment. I desperately need to do the dishes and take out the garbage, for example.

Yesterday, I went to the library. I turned in Stephen Hayes’ book on Cheney and Thomas Thompson’s book on David and Jesus. I actually bought the latter book for a really low price on Amazon. I didn’t really enjoy it, to be honest, but I found it to contain a lot of valuable information. It shows how kings in the ancient Near East are often quintessential sufferers, much like David in the Hebrew Bible.

At the library, I was walking around, trying to see if any particular book grabbed me. Reading a book is a commitment, after all. I found two. One is More than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995). It contains essays from such luminaries as John Hick, Clark Pinnock, and Alister McGrath. I’ve always been curious about Hick’s pluralistic stance, but I’ve never felt the motivation to read any of his books. Reading a book is a commitment, after all. So I hope to get a taste of Hick through his essay. God’s relationship with other religions is a topic with which I struggle. For one, I wonder if God loves people from other religions. After all, there are biblical passages that present most of the world as blind and on the path to perdition. And, second, I am curious about whether I as a Christian should appreciate the wisdom of other cultures. Or am I simply supposed to see them as blinded by Satan?

The second book I checked out was Righteous Warrior: Jesse Helms and the Rise of Modern Conservatism, by William Link (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008). I was hesitant to check this out, since it appears to be rather long. But I’ll give it a shot. I’ve always been a Jesse Helms fan myself. I have his autographed picture, as a matter of fact. It doesn’t mention my name, unlike my pictures of Dan Coats, Strom Thurmond, and Phil Crane, but I still put it in the center of my wall when I was a kid. No, I’m not a segregationist, but I liked his firm and often lonely stand for conservatism.

I read Helms’ autobiography a few years ago, and I found it a little too cheery for my taste. He presented himself as someone who likes everyone. I like more depth. Biographies offer a lot more nuance, since they try to gather more perspectives. Consequently, I prefer biographies to autobiographies.

The book is long, but I plan to take my time. I don’t read huge chunks each day, since that can turn me off to it real fast. Rather, I limit myself to a chapter a day, and, before you know it, I’m done with the book. I like to keep my own pace. I remember when I was in junior high school, and I was reading this long book. Someone said, “Are you still reading that? You should be done with that by now.” I think more than one person has told me that. Those are times when I say to myself, “Man, I wish I were the only person on the face of the earth. Life would be fine if I didn’t have to deal with people.” Such a feeling comes over me every now and then, but I don’t really believe that (I think).

Right now, I’m just not going to worry about how long it takes for me to finish a book. I’m not trying to impress anyone with how much I read. Sometimes, I get more out of a book by going through it slowly. Just look at how much I got out of that Cheney book! What did that generate? Three posts? So don’t be too surprised if you soon read some posts here on religious pluralism and Jesse Helms!

Have a good day! And happy Passover!

Joe Biden

Our featured Presidential candidate for today is Democratic Senator Joe Biden.

I first heard of Joe Biden in 1989, when I was thumbing through the World Almanac. There was a section that narrated the events of the 1988 Presidential election, and it mentioned that Biden was one of the candidates for the Democratic nomination. I honestly did not remember him. I didn’t even know what he looked like. I remembered Dukakis (eyebrows) and Gore (nice suit) and Gephardt (pompous) and Paul Simon (bow-tie, funny looking ears) and Jesse Jackson (again?) and Gary Hart (hot supermodel), but I could not recall who Biden was. Apparently, he dropped out before the race got going. The almanac said that he cancelled his candidacy because he was accused of plagiarism. I don’t exactly dislike him for that. I mean, seriously, what was he supposed to do? Distribute endnotes and a bibliography whenever he delivered a stump speech?

Over the years, I saw Biden on television every now and then. I remember him mainly from the Clarence Thomas hearings, when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I watched some of the hearings, and they were okay, but I particularly liked Kevin Nealon’s portrayal of Biden on Saturday Night Live, in which Biden and the rest of the panel were giving Clarence Thomas some dating tips.

Do I like Biden? Not particularly. I think he comes across as a jerk. He’s not as bad as Gore, mind you, but he still comes across as a jerk. I watched the Roberts hearings, and I recall Biden greeting Roberts with “Hiyah, judge” and continually interrupting him as he tried to answer questions. That wasn’t very respectful, in my opinion. At one of the debates, Biden referred to one question as “stupid.” I think the first time that I saw the humanity of Joe Biden was when I was reading Jesse Helms’ autobiography. To my surprise, Jesse Helms said that he and Biden actually got along, but he also mentioned that Biden lost his wife and daughter in a car accident. I really felt horrible for Biden when I read that. My political worldview divides the world into good guys and bad guys, but I should remember that even the figures I politically oppose are people who can suffer.

As far as his political stances are concerned, his record is somewhat mixed. Let’s start with abortion. He wants the government to be neutral on abortion, meaning that he opposes federal funding for the practice. And, on some level, his record actually backs up his rhetoric, for he voted on July 22, 1997 to prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions. At the same time, he wants abortion to be an option in taxpayer-funded military hospitals. He thinks that the U.S. should fund foreign non-governmental organizations, even when they perform abortions. He wants the government to subsidize stem-cell research. He may sincerely believe that the government should be neutral on abortion, but some of his votes achieve the opposite effect. He deserves praise for his vote to ban partial-birth abortion, yet his continual and prominent opposition to conservative judicial nominees indicates that preserving Roe vs. Wade is a priority of his. This, even though he agrees with the Catholic Church that life begins at conception.

On economic policy, he opposes all sorts of tax cuts. There is one bright spot on his record, for he voted to eliminate the marriage penalty. But, overall, his record on taxes is horrible. On spending, Biden supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. A President Biden would probably give us a balanced budget, but most likely through tax increases.

On foreign policy, he has been a hawk on certain wars. He helped persuade Bill Clinton to use military force in the former Yugoslavia, and, today, he wants American troops in Darfur. On Iraq, he is pragmatic enough not to call for immediate troop withdrawal, but, overall, he prefers a non-violent solution. One proposal that he is working on with Senator Brownback (R-KS) would divide Iraq into Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish regions, splitting the oil revenues among them. I thought that was a good idea when I first heard Senator Biden propose it, even though I didn’t care much for Senator Biden. As far as his hawkishness goes, I’m not sure if I support using American troops to solve all the world’s human rights problems. I know that I’ve questioned the “negotiation” approach in past posts, but I’m also uncomfortable with America getting involved in more wars, especially ones that we may not win. I wouldn’t want our intervention in Darfur to end up like our action in Somalia.

Most of Senator Biden’s positions are mixtures of right and left, with a greater leftward propensity. One issue on which he is firmly liberal, however, is gun control, prompting the NRA to give him an “F.” Although Biden wrote the 1994 Crime Bill, his approach to gun control is to blame the gun for violence. He wrote the ban on assault weapons, and he also wants to allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers. What is interesting is that he voted against mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms. That makes no sense. Who is at fault, the gun or the criminal who fires it?

One more thing that I dislike: he sent his own kids to a private school, yet he voted against school vouchers for the D.C. area. Why can’t other kids have the same choice that he had? At the same time, to his credit, he voted “yes” on education savings accounts that could be used for public or private schools. He also supports merit pay for teachers. So how he got a 91% from the National Education Association, I have no idea!

My sources for this post are wikipedia, Project Vote Smart – Senator Biden – Voting Record, and Joe Biden on the Issues. Have a nice day!