GREENSPAN'S "MISTAKE"

The Rev. Dana Prom Smith, S.T.D., Ph.D. (10/25/08)

While listening to Alan Greenspan "admit a mistake," "an error," and "flaws in his thinking," I wondered how he could be so wrong when so much was at stake. There are three reasons. He could've been venal, fattening his pockets and those of his Wall Street cohorts, getting rich off of everyone else's misery.

He could've been stupid for assuming that an activity motivated by greed and fear could be left free to regulate itself, letting the foxes guard the hen house. A stretch in California's notorious Pelican Bay Prison could help him understand the need for regulation in a society of greed and fear. Regulation is the answer.

The third possibility is that he's naïve, like he doesn't get it. If economics is the "dismal science," that Thomas Carlyle said it was, being "dreary, desolate, and abject," Alan Greenspan is the prize specimen. Apparently, he thinks that people driven by greed and fear are trustworthy. Only a fool could think that.

Greenspan's "whole intellectual edifice collapsed" because he was wrong about human beings. He would do well to listen to Reinhold Niebuhr, the late, great American theologian who authored the famous "Serenity Prayer." Niebuhr wrote that the only Christian doctrine capable of empirical verification is original sin, by which he meant that although human beings are created inherently good, they will inevitably go wrong. Reading the morning newspaper, as Niebuhr said, proves the point.

The worst possible reading is that Greenspan, being a Republican, knew all these things and is, therefore, venal.

NOT WHAT'S SAID, BUT HOW

The Rev. Dana Prom Smith, S.T.D., Ph.D. (10/16/08)

When human beings communicate with one another, they simultaneously transfer content and reinforce the terms of their relationships. Surprisingly enough, content is about ten percent of the communication while reinforcing the relationship is about ninety percent. This means if we pay too much attention to content, we may miss the point.

When politicians trot out their economic programs, health care proposals, foreign policies, the issue is not the content, but the manner in which those programs, proposals, and policies are delivered, such as gestures, grimaces, rolled-eyes, tones of voice, and even types of words. A pointed finger carries a message as well as an open hand. A grimace and a smile are messages.

On television's split screen with the mute button pressed, two radically different messages were conveyed to the American public in this year's televised debates. Obama smiles when McCain attacks him. Big message. He doesn't get hurt. Who wants a president who gets hurt?

McCain snarls, grimaces, rolls his eyes. Who wants a president who gets angry when someone disagrees or even criticizes him?

Policies always change with the exigencies of the moment, such as unregulated Republicans nationalizing banks. Anyone bound up in policy proposals misses the point because they're content. The issue is how it's said, not what's said. That's the measure of the politician.

We don't need another angry, ideological president who's convinced he's right and is contemptuous and abusive of those who disagree with him. We need a steady, unflappable hand at the helm.

NOT LOOKING

The Rev. Dana Prom Smith, S.T.D., Ph.D. (10/11/08)



When John McCain failed to make eye contact with Barack Obama during the first debate, political pundits commented on the odd behavior without understanding its significance. In Mexican culture it indicates submission, but John McCain isn't Mexican so submission seems out of the running. In the general America culture, it indicates one of two things. People tend to avert their gaze when they are lying. When they don't and keep a steady gaze while lying, they are sociopaths without guilt. Sometimes, sociopaths will reveal a little residual guilt with a tic in the corner of their eyes.

John McCain isn't a sociopath so he averts his gaze. Sarah Palin looks people straight in the eye while lying without a semblance of a tic.

The second reason which is closely allied to the first is shame. When people with consciences lie, they feel ashamed and avert their gaze. John McCain feels ashamed because of his lies. Sarah Palin has shown no indication of shame, not even a flicker.

McCain's smile is a curiosity. It isn't a smile so much as it's a grimace. He smiles without mirth, a smile of constipation. It's hard to imagine John McCain with a belly laugh. That would be too much out of control and might result in flatulence

Sarah Palin enjoys lying, sticking it people. She's relishes slashing and burning, practicing the politics of destruction and alienation. On the contrary, without mirth John McCain doesn't enjoy himself as he becomes what he inwardly despises.

THE WHITE MAN'S BEST FRIEND

The Rev. Dana Prom Smith, S.T.D., Ph.D. (10/8/08)

Forty years ago amidst the civil rights crisis, I was interviewed by a pastoral search committee at a church in Woodside, California, one of the members of the committee asked me what I thought about Martin Luther King, Jr. I replied that my family and I had marched with him down State Street in Chicago, that I had marched in Selma, and that I thought he was the white man's best friend.

The questioner pursued the subject, "What kind of trouble did you cause in your present church?" I replied, "Three families left. Five new families joined, and our pledges increased by $12,000. The chairman of the trustees, a man from North Carolina, told me that I was doing the work of the Gospel."

I wasn't invited to serve as the pastor of the church in Woodside.

Just as Martin Luther King, Jr., was the white man's best friend so is Barrack Obama. The reason is simple. He will level the racial playing field in American culture. Aside from his obvious qualifications to serve as the president, his very presence will quell racial politics played by both black and white politicians.

For instance, Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton, for all the good they've done, still plays racial politics. They won't be able to do that with Barrack Obama in the White House. Needless to say, whites opposed to racial equality, like Sarah Palin, will have to tone down their extravagancies if they want to play politics with President Obama because of his impeccable racial credentials.