The Bosque Boys

The Episcopal Church is rocking the world-wide Anglican communion by its endorsement of same-sex practice and marriage. Third-world Anglicans have demanded the U.S. branch (the Episcopalians) repent. The Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the communion (with far less powers than the pope) is trying to hold things together.

The Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire is now giving the Anglican communion the bird, announcing that in June he will wed his same-sex partner. Story here.

Previous posts.

G.K. Chesterton once wrote that the great difficulty for many in converting to Roman Catholicism is accepting the idea that someone else may know more than you do. The Episcopal Church is having real trouble accepting that the world-wide communion, and especially the third-world primates, may know more than the church of one nation.

Chesterton also wrote that many people perceived a conversion to Roman Catholicism as a narrowing of perspective. On the contrary, he asserted, one becomes broadened by entering into an international Church spanning the eras. Conversion liberated one from the shackles of the culture of one nation. Methinks the Episcopal Church is too captive to modern Western culture and thought.

Shelby Steele:

"[T]he cultural and historical implications of [Barack] Obama's candidacy are clearly greater than its public policy implications...his candidacy itself asks the American democracy to complete itself...."

I vigorously recommend Steele's essay in last week's TIME Magazine (here), which proved tremendously useful as I continue to wrestle with my ongoing ambivalence concerning Obama and his unlikely campaign.

As I have admitted previously on several occasions, I am strangely attracted to the notion of Barack Obama.

Why is this odd?

The candidate and I are diametrically opposed on almost every substantive issue--several of which I see as absolutely crucial to the future of our nation.

But still...I grow frustratingly fonder.

Why?

What is it about this forty-six year-old freshman senator, who can point to absolutely no uniquely heroic deed that recommends him to the presidency? What else could there possibly be about Barack Obama that makes him special?

Indisputably, obviously, it is race; or, more precisely, the mesmerizing combination of race, charisma, and potential.

Shelby Steele again:

"Obama...is an opportunity for whites to think well of themselves, to give themselves one of the most self-flattering feelings a modern white can have: that they are not racist."

An obvious point. But this plays much bigger than the personal. The election of Barack Obama will forcefully declare that America is not racist. Obama can prove the self evident truth that all men are created equal in this storied "land of opportunity," where, regardless of race, all persons are free to enjoy liberty and justice and for all.

Obama can be the person in our lifetimes who transcends (even redeems) our tortured past and accelerates a national healing process.

Moreover, I dream that Obama will be the ultimate role model for African Americans who will come to apprehend, finally, that the game is not rigged. For I believe that believing is half the battle. Obama can personify the notion of unlimited possibility, which will encourage children of color to work hard and expect success in an America where we all benefit from one another's successes.

But I also have my doubts. Will Obama be a "sellout"? Not in the traditional sense of betraying the black community for a place at the white man's table. No, I worry that Barack Obama will "sell out" the vision of racial transcendence, opting instead for the "tried and true" Democratic Party message of historic and continued oppression, benign paternalism, and quid pro quo.

Once again, I strongly recommend Steele's insightful essay, "The Identity Card," which suggests that Obama is unlikely to choose (perhaps incapable of choosing) a path that leads us beyond the toxic politics of black and white.

My mixed emotions continue to swirl...

David Freddoso on NRO lays out a complicated but compelling scenario in which the Republican primary process might not yield a presumptive nominee:

Convention Wisdom:
A Minneapolis floor fight is not so far-fetched.

I speculated on this possibility in brief a few weeks ago (here and here).

Moreover, I agree with Freddoso that a meaningful and/or raucous convention could be a great advantage to the Grand Old Party.

UPDATE: Fodder for a future post perhaps, but is has also occurred to me recently that an inconclusive primary season might tempt the relevant players to make a deal (or alliance) during the long interval following the voting but before the convention begins.

In past wars, we would have read the story of Joshua Chiarini in the papers. Now the blogosphere must do the job for the MSM. Chiarini is a Navy Corpsman attached to the Marines. On February 2, 2006, his actions in Anbar province earned him the Silver Star. Read the story here.

My searching has found no mention of this story in the New York Times or Washington Post.

Not every Episcopal member, congregation, or diocese, is going quietly into the bad night of liberalism. Story here.

This week the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin decides whether to remain within the Episcopal Denomination, or leave. This is the second vote. The first vote to leave passed overwhelmingly, but a second vote is needed. The immediate issue: the Episcopal Church's affirmation of same-sex sex, and opening of church leadership positions to those so practicing.

At this point the main tactic of the Episcopal denomination is to threaten dissident congregations with loss of their property if they leave, and threats of action against opposition leaders. My conclusion, if a church is reduced to legal threats it has lost spiritual authority.

I think every U.S. state has a motto. Most are not that memorable. My favorite, far and away, is New Hampshire's:

LIVE FREE OR DIE

Powerline has some background on this bold declaration.

It comes from a quote by New Hampshire's greatest Revolutionary War hero, Gen. John Stark. Stark reportedly gave a toast in 1809, when poor health led him to decline an invitation to a reunion of veterans of the 1777 Battle of Bennington: "Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils." . . . General Stark had a way with words. Before leading his troops to victory in the battle of Bennington, which set up the decisive defeat of the British at Saratoga, he told his men, "Tonight, the American flag floats over yonder hill, or Molly Stark sleeps a widow!"

That motto is an in-your-face assertion of liberty in the face of tyranny; the essence of Revolutionary republicanism in four words.

Some other great state mottos:

LIBERTY AND INDEPENDENCE Delaware
STATE SOVEREIGNTY, NATIONAL UNION Illinois
OUR LIBERTIES WE PRIZE AND OUR RIGHTS WE WILL MAINTAIN Iowa
EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW Nebraska
VIRTUE, LIBERTY, AND INDEPENDENCE Pennsylvania
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS (Thus Always to Tyrants, i.e., Death to Tyrants) Virginia
QUI TRANSTULIT SUSTINET (He Who Transplanted Sustains) Connecticut

Powerline has this picture of Tehran University students, demonstrating against the regime and on behalf of imprisoned fellow students, with a sign reading LIVE FREE OR DIE.

Once more we face threat from tyrants. This time from those who would impose Islam. LIVE FREE OR DIE.

After watching the Oprah and Obama spectacular in Iowa yesterday (live on C-SPAN), Tim, a Bosque Boys reader, wrote:

"He was loud, talked about 'Change' and at least one person in the audience fainted. What I saw was a lot of 'Look at me I am charismatic,' but not a lot of substance. I compare that with Mitt Romney's speech, and they are on two different levels. Mitt Romney talked about the substance of America, Obama shouted about change. I think Obama is drawing a lot more people to him, but many of those people may not really be able to give a good reason why."

Well reported, Tim. This observation, for the most part, squares with what I saw. I am more impressed with Obama, and less taken with Romney, but, in essence, Tim's analysis is spot-on.

Undoubtedly, Obama has won the coveted mantle of "the agent of change." Conventional wisdom focuses on this element as the key to winning--but I have asked before: "Do Americans Really Want Change in 2008?" I am not convinced we really do this time around. At least, the changes we seem to want are not of the revolutionary variety.

Obama's appeal is not rooted in dynamic proposals that set him apart from other contenders. In truth, Obama doesn't say anything different than any of the other Democratic candidates. He promises a compassionate administration and a society in which all God's children are cared for by a benevolent entity--the federal government.

Having said that, the freshman senator offers something entirely different. What makes Obama unique is his ability to cast himself as a liberal messiah.

Knee deep in the Advent season, Oprah Winfrey asked (and answered): "Is he the One?" "Yes!" Oprah assured us. This is the one on whom we have hoped. This is the one for whom we have been waiting. The long period of anticipation is over. The moment has arrived. Joy to the World! Peace on Earth! Goodwill toward Men!

And while his rhetoric is boilerplate, the real danger in Obama is that he may actually mean what he says. Why my alarm? He is a uniquely magnetically charismatic candidate. He can win the general election in November--and win in a big way, painting the map blue. His success will likely hinge on his personality and gifts--but he will then interpret his victory as a mandate for "change."

Many Hillary detractors castigate her as a socialist. Maybe that characterization fit during her idealistic young adult years during the heady atmosphere of the early 1970s. But Mrs. Clinton's journey--which began as the daughter of a suburban Chicago Republican--and now finds her playing the role of a center-left, establishment senator from New York, places her squarely in the "status quo" block of American politics. For a lot of reasons (political and personal), Hillary's America will never be any more radical than Bill's America.

On the other hand, Barack's America may very well mean a return to a pre-Ronald Reagan sensibility and an unabashed neo-liberalism. Are we ready for that? Can we survive that?

From the Daily Telegraph (UK) interesting lists with a British twist of things, events, and experiences for Christmas.

One of my favorites:

Immaculate projection
In the first week of December, the Jesuit fathers project a giant full-colour image of the Nativity on the Mount Street side of the Church of the Immaculate Conception in London's West End. It's a glorious rebuke - both spiritual and aesthetic - to the commercial tawdriness all around. This year it will be a Madonna and Child by the Roman Baroque painter Carlo Maratta. RD

Although "Obama Fever" has paled somewhat in the wake of "Huckabee Hysteria," the new "Hillary is finished" bandwagon has not lost much momentum this week.

A few thoughts:

1. Obama can win. You read it here first (back in January).

2. But he has some very tough sledding ahead. As I laid out here last month.

3. Keep in mind, all the media know-it-alls who are predicting the imminent demise of Hillary Clinton this week are the same experts who were mindlessly parroting her inevitability last month.

The real story: Nobody Knows Anything. We are still almost one month out from a canvass. The story is going to shift several times before then. It is going to be wild--but the race in Iowa, as it has been for six months, remains too close to call. Nationally, Hillary still holds the upper hand.

4. Oprah? If we allow Oprah to pick our next president, I fear we will get the government we deserve. A thought: Oprah helps Obama most where he is the strongest: upwardly mobile white women. Hill is still strong with working-class women and minorities. But here is the great irony: I have a hunch that Democratic men will save Hillary, seeing her as their most pragmatic and hard-headed option in a troubled world.

With the aid of Oprah, Obama becomes the candidate of the tender-hearted. Edwards keeps the incorrigibly soft-headed. And Hillary remains the choice for the tough-minded. Of course, this leads to an obvious question: are there still enough clear-eyed men with calloused hands, stout hearts, and good old-fashioned horse sense in the Democratic Party to influence an election?

The reviews are in--and they are mostly raves.

The plaudits are usually followed by this statement: "it is just too bad that he had to do it."

In truth, I am not convinced that the speech Mitt Romney delivered was actually necessary. I remain skeptical that any significant bigotry, skepticism, or even interest in Mormonism was playing much of a role in this campaign. The address in College Station, however, offered a golden opportunity to address the nation in a statesman-like way regarding an issue of purported magnitude and historical significance—and champion a cause with which we all agree (at least all us Republicans).

More than a necessary defense of religious liberty and personal principles, the Speech, more accurately, was a brilliant public relations coup for a somewhat beleaguered campaign stalled and in need of attention, a morale boost, and a rallying point.

Mission Accomplished.

As Pat Buchanan wrote yesterday:

"If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be due in large measure to his splendid and moving defense of his faith and beliefs delivered today at the George Bush Presidential Library."

Mitt is at the top of every page today--and he deserves to be. Well done.