Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:17:42 -0500
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Ron Silver

Maks:

Thanks for the post.  I have a few interesting observations of my own
to add, concerning a curious double-mindedness I have noted on the
part of those celebrating "change":

I watched the Inaugural Festivities.  You may have seen Bill Clinton
presented with a saxaphone, which he then played.  This is viewed as
evidence that he is truly a "man of the people," really and sincerely
"one of us."  However, I refer you to the last inaugural celebration,
during which the newly elected George Bush was presented with a guitar
emblazoned (do you emblazon a guitar?) "Prez."  The media view of
*that* (and of his abortive attempt to jam with First Party Dude Lee
Atwater) was that it was a cheap stunt, and evidence that his presidency
would be marked by mere "photo opportunities," devoid of substance.

During the Bush presidency, the unhipness of the Bushes and the Quayles
was legendary.  And, we all remember the embarrassing way in which
Ronald Reagan seemed unable to find the rhythm to clap along to the
vibrant rhythms of black gospel music.  However, no mention has been
made (except by Rush Limbaugh) of Al Gore's bizarrely Frankenstinian
(new word?) interpretation of applause.

When Bush or Reagan appointees failed to pass muster before Congressional
Committees, it was because they were evil, venal, and "just didn't get
it."  This weekend, following the thoroughly botched Zoe Baird nomination,
the airwaves were stuffed with liberals and feminists explaining that
this was a mere "indiscretion," a "mistake," and "essentially due to
the abysmal situation of child care in this nation."

When Reagan and Bush expressed their *positions* on abortion and used
the power of the Presidency to pursue those positions (yet, we note,
did not issue any Presidential Directives or Executive Orders on the
matter), they were considered to be "forcing their ideologies down
our throats."  Yet when Bill Clinton used the occasion of Roe v. Wade
day to issue not one, but three Executive Orders reversing past policy
(policy that had been determined not by the President, but by Departments
and by Congress, executive orders that cannot be changed by the people's
House and Senate, nor reversed [except in very extraordinary circumstances]
by the Court), it is trumpeted as a great fulfillment of the promises made
to "the people."  (Not, of course, to "special interest groups" that funded
the Clinton campaign).  And, of course, we must recall that this President
is a *minority* president, opposed by 60% of the voters.  Yet he is
the choice of a new generation, the beloved leader of a now free and
re-empowered people.

I do not raise these questions for partisan reasons.  I believe that lack
of rhythm does not a bad leader make, but nor does it follow that a man
whose support does not cross the line of fifty percent plus one is
speaking for "us."  I simply think that we need to be aware that, whether
we agree or disagree with a politician's ideology, we must recognize that
what we are told about that person *is* ideologically slanted according
to the source.

As Christians, it is our duty to pledge our fidelity not to Bill and Al,
nor to George and Dan, but to *GOD*.  Those of the conservative persuasion
who failed to apply a Biblical measure to the actions of the previous
administration and accepted actions simply because of the man in the office
will soon learn that the machinations of politics are not exclusive to any
party.  Blind obedience lives on the left, as well as on the right.  And
those of us who failed to call "our" man to account to God have set a
dangerous precedent and sown the wind.

During the next four years, this conception of sin will give birth to
death.  And all will share in the reaping of the whirlwind.

Love INC,

--Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU