Good Guys

Why do bad things happen to good people? The question has been pondered for millennia. But I have another question: Why do good people do bad things?

The ancient story of Job deals with both questions.

The first question gets all the attention. It's the question Job demands an answer to but never receives. Job's friends are pretty sure they know the answer: it was something Job did.

I don't know that I was taught this, but I grew up thinking Job's friends were not really friends. They were mean and thoughtless, "miserable comforters," as Job says at one point. But that's not the whole story.

When they arrive, they spend seven days in silence just being there with and for Job. These are committed friends. They aren't bad guys. And just because Job sometimes berates them does not mean he doesn't care for them. He berates, yet honors, God too.

Job's friends are good guys and true friends.

I recently heard a story on The Moth Radio Hour about a grandchild's love for his grammy, who also loved him dearly but was less than purely good. It's too easy to know one aspect of a person and decide that they are either good or bad.

We are all bad guys; we are all good guys. The line between good and evil runs through every human heart, says Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Good guys do bad things. One of the qualifications for sainthood, I think, is an insistence that one is not saintly (I admit limited knowledge on this subject; perhaps canonization sometimes allows for arrogance). Good guys ought to recognize their failures. But sometimes the worst part of bad behavior is a conviction that it is righteous.

Job's friends are pious and certain about what God wants and how and why God does things. They know that if you have problems it's your fault and God is punishing you. It's their duty to warn their friend about this and set him straight.

It seems this very piety is what pisses God off. We don't realize it while they are arguing. We think, hey these guys have a point. They know their theology. When God scolds Job at length for impertinence without addressing the friends, I suspect they nod in agreement and feel justified for their judgment. Only after God tells off Job for thinking he understands what he doesn't, only then do we find out that God's bigger beef is with the friends; Job must pray for them to prevent their ruin.

Job is honest. He has the chutzpah to express his deepest, darkest thoughts and feelings. His friends, on the other hand, say what they think God wants them to say. And that's their sin! Finally God turns to the friends: "I am angry with you, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."

What?! Us? No, you don't underst... (gulp). Surprise ending.

Job's friends, good guys that they are, repent. They make their sacrifices. They eat their crow. They are not dealt with according to their folly.

When most certain that we are proclaiming God's will, we most need humility. We might well be full of folly.

Coalition Party

Parliamentary governments need to form coalitions to stay in power. In the US we have a binary system. That system may be falling apart, but history suggests it will remain a two-party system even if one (or both) of the parties change.

The Democratic party is gaining support from a lot of people who formerly considered themselves conservative, whether or not Republicans. At the same time, some forces within the party are pushing things farther to the left, partly in reaction to the current administration and Republican senators and representatives who so willingly aid and abet. Others want the party to be more centrist.

I'm hoping the party moves neither right nor left--or rather does both.

What I don't want is a reactionary party that lashes out against everything that the administration or the Republicans propose. The Daily Kos, for example, tends to take offense at or mock every statement, action, policy, or suggestion of the current government. Maybe we need some of that vitriol, but I would hate to see it define the Democratic Party.

I would like to hear the Party explicitly invite everyone to join them as a coalition of those who want to see change. Rather than a well-defined platform that says exactly how the party stands on this, that, and the next issue or policy, it should have a more open platform with some defining principles and should then open itself to dialog, not infighting.

Perhaps what you like about the Democratic Party is that it represents the left, and you want to be far to the left. Does that mean you reject as a partner someone who wants a sensible middle path? You are strongly pro-choice; would you rather push a pro-life moderate who welcomes refugees and cares about social justice back to the Republican Party? You despise all guns; can you work with a hunter who agrees that sensible gun control and more research into gun violence is essential?

Why not find common ground? On each of the issues that divide us progressives and liberals there are sensible paths that we can agree on. You disagree? You may be right. Which issues are they? Which ones allow no compromise better than the bigotry and injustice of the current administration and congress? I can't think of any; help me out.

Much of the Republican Party seems to revel in its deplorability. It offers every aid to those who need it least. It wrings its hands and then sits on them when it comes to gun violence while belittling and insulting students who saw their classmates shot and killed. It blames the disenfranchised for national debt and immigrants for crime. And our president lies and lies and lies--while analysts debate his policies and hazard guesses about his positions.

Does the Democratic Party have an alternative? Yes. Can we agree on it? Probably not. But we can agree that justice and liberty should be for all, and not weighted in favor of the rich and powerful. Let's keep debating how best to achieve justice, but let's not wait until we are all of one mind on every policy. That will be the death of us.

What will it take to unite us? What is a theme that sums up the appropriate response of responsible people to current plutocracy? Let's unite on that and let it guide the coalition while we debate the details.

#ForThePeople

Social Justice

More than a century ago, Ford Motors announced a wage hike. They based the decision on a sense of justice.

It is our belief that social justice begins at home. We want those who have helped us to produce this great institution and are helping to maintain it to share our prosperity. We want them to have present profits and future prospects. ... Believing as we do, that a division of our earnings between capital and labor is unequal, we have sought a plan of relief suitable for our business.
-James Couzens, Ford Motor Company treasurer, announcing the doubling of wages to $5/day on Jan 5, 1914

The Wall Street Journal denounced Ford's decision "to apply biblical or spiritual principles into a field where they do not belong." The Journal claimed Ford had "committed economic blunders, if not crimes." The result of Ford's action was a major reduction in worker turnover and a doubling of profits within five years. Ford was responding positively to its workers requests and the urging of labor unions. And the results were mostly good for both parties.

In later years Ford clashed violently with the unions. That action led to investigations, poor publicity for Ford, and eventually a contract between the United Auto Workers union and Ford.

If the recent election is any indication, many now consider it more noble for a tycoon to deny workers their wages based on arbitrary notions of quality than for a community to insist on a reasonable living for every worker.

I won't pretend to understand all the economic benefits and liabilities of increased wages. But I have a hard time believing that increasing the minimum wage will bring economic disaster. As income disparity increases, I hope some communities are free to experiment with rules about wages.

In Michigan, where Ford years ago made some commendable decisions and other wrong-headed ones, that freedom will not be tolerated. Here, the state denies communities the right to make decisions about shopping bags, much less about wages. Doesn't strike me as justice.

Note: Thanks to A Word A Day, which posted the Couzens quote as its thought for the day.

Action

So, now what?

I for one have never been so motivated. So what should we do? I don't know, frankly, but I've got some ideas. What are yours?

I had a discussion with a college student friend who said posting comments on Facebook wasn't effective. He aims to start working at an immigrant center. Bravo!

At work we would call this a time to brainstorm. There are no bad ideas at this stage. Everything is a possibility. Later we can look at our options and pick the ones that seem most likely to have an effect.

Here's my list of things we can try.

Admit ignorance. We have been outfoxed. It will happen again. We obviously aren't experts at this game. So change the game. Ask questions. Demand explanations with substance. Steve Bannon, Trump's propaganda vizier, likes to brag he's smarter than most. He is. All we've got is truth. Let's use that.

Protest nonviolently. Every bit of violence in protest against Trump will be amplified by Bannon while he ignores or justifies violence that serves him. Don't give him ammunition, tempting as it is. Protest something specific. Protesting Bannon is a good place to start. Let's expose him for what he is. Make him a bigger liability to Trump than he is an asset.

Engage those you know who voted for Trump. A lot of us would just as soon avoid family gatherings or get-togethers with some of our old friends. Give yourself time, but then engage. Try to understand where they are coming from and ask questions. Why do you feel this way? What made you like Trump over Clinton? What on God's green earth were you thinking!? OK, not this last one in this way. But let them know how disillusioned you are with a moral platform that endorses this paragon of immorality. Let them know why you are happy to walk away from it.

Support justice and truth. Contribute to SPLC, or the justice organization of your choice.

Join and challenge Democrats. The party is smarting and rethinking. Let's be part of the redefining. They can and should expand their platform to better include exvangelicals. If your political bent won't permit you to join the Democratic Party, start a new one. Truth and Justice Party.

Love your neighbor. I'm a privileged white male. If I'm not looking out for those who really have something to lose from this national choice, I'm not doing my job. Stand with those who so legitimately feel threatened. (And tell me how to do that better.)

Demand an accounting. Speak out against the hypocrisy of white evangelical leaders. If Matthew 23 wasn't written for them, let them explain why not.

Listen to other prophets. White male evangelical leaders have failed us. Listen to other voices: women and minorities. These are some who inspire me: Rachel Held Evans, Brandi Miller, Nadia Boltz-Weber, Yolanda Pierce. Who am I missing? Let me know. Quit listening to people like me and listen to people like them.

Job

Job is the story of a good man who had everything and lost it. He doesn't see the justice in his suffering. Eventually, his wealth is restored.

I would like to see the story of Job rewritten as that of someone who has nothing, suffers immensely, and ends up with nothing. Where's the justice in that?