What I learned about Hillary Clinton from reading her book

Hillary Clinton was back in the news recently for offending half the country because she had the gall to state a fact about the 2016 election in a speech in India. "I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product," she said. "So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, 'Make America Great Again,' was looking backwards."
Given the media reaction and accompanying backlash, you would have thought it was the "deplorables" comment redux. I'm sure Trump lovers find this infinitely more outrageous than their beloved leader describing the immigrant issue in the context of "shithole" countries. 

Sometimes, the truth hurts (and matters a whole lot more than the never-ending lies that emanate from the mouth of the person who defeated her in the election despite winning 3 million fewer votes). 

Given the latest uproar (or much ado about nothing), I thought this would be a good chance to offer some observations about Clinton and her book, "What Happened," which I read recently.

I don't how much of the book was written by Clinton herself, but whoever was responsible for penning it, it was one of the most insightful, gripping nonfiction narratives I've come across in recent years. Rarely does a book leave me engrossed from start to finish, and I never imagined that a book written by and about Hillary Clinton would rise to that level. While I wholeheartedly supported her candidacy over Trump, I also viewed her as a flawed and less-than-inspiring candidate. I'm not the biggest Clinton (Bill or Hillary) fan in the world for a number of reasons, but I did think she was eminently qualified to be president, and genuinely would have tried to bring the country together and find common-sense solutions to complex problems.

While the book was obviously written from her point of view, with no opportunity for those she criticized to respond, I thought she made a number of compelling arguments about how she was treated unfairly -- even cruelly -- by the media, the public and her opponents. But more than that, the book provided some fascinating insights into her life, her values and her beliefs that I thought I would share here, along with some quotes that particularly stood out.

 Clinton's Christian faith is an important part of her life. 

Unlike the man who overwhelmingly won the evangelical Christian vote, Hillary seems to genuinely be a person whose religious faith plays a central role in her life. She spent much time in the book talking about her Methodist upbringing, the ministers who counseled her and the prayers she recited. She even acknowledged that much of the public would probably be skeptical of this aspect of her life (which also brings up an interesting question about why the role that religion plays in the lives of liberal politicians tends to be ignored, whether by the media, the public or the politicians themselves, while conservatives wear it as a badge of honor, even when it's largely a fake badge).

“I prayed a lot. I can almost see the cynics rolling their eyes. But pray I did, as fervently as I can remember ever doing. … I prayed for help to put the sadness and disappointment of my defeat behind me; to stay hopeful and openhearted rather than becoming cynical and bitter; and to find a new purpose and start a new chapter, so that the rest of my life wouldn’t be spent like Miss Havisham from Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations, rattling around my house obsessing over what might have been.”

And I wonder if Trump -- or most evangelical voters -- could have named this verse from scripture the way she did during this campaign stop.

"In late May 2015, I was campaigning in Columbia, South Carolina. In between events, we squeezed in a quick stop at the Main Street Bakery so I could get a cupcake and shake some hands. There was only one customer in the place, an older African American gentleman sitting alone by the window, engrossed in a book. I was reluctant to disturb him, but we made eye contact. I walked over to say hello and ask what he was reading. The man looked up and said, ‘First Conrinthians 13’ I smiled. ‘Love is patient, love is kind,’ I said, ‘it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.’

His name was Donnie Hunt, and he was a minister at the First Calvary Baptist Church, getting ready for the day’s Bible study. He invited me to sit down.

He told me how rewarding he found it to read these familiar lines again and again. ‘You’ always learn something,’ he said.

‘Well, it’s alive,’ I replied. ‘It’s the living word.’ "

And I found this particularly uplifting and inspiring:

“A few weeks after the election, I picked up a copy of a sermon called ‘You Are Accepted,’ by Paul Tillich, the Christian theologian of the mid-twentieth century. I remembered sitting in my church basement in Park Ridge years ago as our youth minister, Don James, read it to us. 'Grace strikes us when we are in great pain and restlessness...Sometimes at that moment, a wave of light breaks into our darkness, and it is as though a voice were saying, ‘You are accepted.’ Years later, when my marriage was in crisis, I called Don. Read Tillich, he said. I did. It helped.”

She makes a compelling argument for why the media and public have been unfair to her

Clinton has often been portrayed as unwilling to acknowledge her own faults and flaws. In this book, she admits those mistakes and shortcomings on multiple occasions, but she also argues convincingly that the portrayals of her during her life, particularly by the media, failed to capture the full story of her life and career. As someone who spent his career as a journalist, I have to say she makes a legitimate point here.

“The truth is, everyone’s flawed. That’s the nature of human beings. But our mistakes alone shouldn’t define us. We should be judged by the totality of our work and life. Many problems don’t have either/or answers, and a good decision today may not look as good 10 or 20 years later through the lens of new conditions. When you’re in politics, this gets more complicated. We all want -- and the political press demands -- a ‘story line,’ which tends to cast people as either saints or sinners. You’re either revered or reviled. And there’s no juicier political story than the saint who gets unmasked as a sinner. A two-dimensional cartoon is easier to digest than a fully formed person.”

And she is particularly harsh in her criticism of the New York Times, which is interesting given how the far right often characterizes it as a tool of liberalism.

“Over the years, going all the way back to the baseless Whitewater inquisition, it’s’ seemed as if many of those in charge of political coverage at the New York Times have viewed me with hostility and skepticism. They’e applied what’s sometimes called, ‘The Clinton Rules.’ … As a result, a lot of journalists see their job as exposing the devious machinations of the secretive Clinton machine. The Times has by no means been the only -- or even the worst -- offender, but it’s treatment has stung the most.”

She had some interesting things to say about her marriage

I didn't expect much from her about her marriage with Bill in the book, and she didn't offer much, but what she did offer was insightful -- and inspiriting to anyone who experiences dark days of struggle in their own marriage.

“We’ve certainly had dark days in our marriage. You know all about them -- and please consider for a moment what it would be like for the whole world to know about the worst moments in your relationship. There were times that I was deeply unsure about whether our marriage could or should survive. But on those days, I asked myself the question that matters most to me. ‘Do I still love him?’ And can I still be in this marriage without becoming unrecognizable to myself -- twisted by anger, resentment, or remoteness?’ The answers were always yes. So I kept going.”

She gives some great practical advice for engaging in politics and voting wisely

Conscious of the devastating role that lies, misinformation and echo-chamber thinking played in the 2016 election, Clinton points out that the best way to avoid these pitfalls going forward is to educate ourselves, think critically, keep an open mind, and not get discouraged.

“It’s up to each one of us to stay informed and make good decisions with rigorous reasoning and real deliberation. This is especially important when it comes to voting. Choose wisely and don’t fall for scams. The same way you try to be careful about where you put your money or the car you buy, be careful and informed with your vote. And we all have the ability to break out of our echo chambers and engage with people who don’t agree with us politically. We can keep an open mind and be willing to change our minds from time to time. Even if our outreach is rebuffed, it’s worth it to keep trying. We’re all going to share our American future together -- better to do so with open hearts and outstretched hands than closed minds and clenched fists.”

She also makes a special plea for people to get involved politically in their communities, which particularly hits home with me:

“Local issues are every bit as important as national and global ones. If you see a problem in your community that needs fixing or an injustice that needs correcting, and you think, ‘Someone ought to do something about that,’ guess what? That someone could easily be you. Show up at a city council or school board meeting and suggest a solution. If a problem is affecting your life, it’s probably affecting someone else’s -- and that person might just be willing to join you."

She both apologizes for and defends the "deplorables" comment

Clinton's biggest mistake during the campaign is typically considered the comment she made saying that Trump's supporters could be placed into two baskets, one of which were the deplorables who preach hate, racism, sexism, you name it. While it may not have been politically wise, the fact is that it was accurate based on everything we've seen and know, and this is how she addressed it in the book.

“I know that a lot of well-intentioned people were insulted because they misunderstood me to be criticizing all Trump voters. I’m sorry about that. But too many of Trump’s core supporters do hold views that I find -- there’s no other word for it -- deplorable. And while I’m sure a lot of Trump supporters had fair and legitimate reasons for their choice, it is an uncomfortable and unavoidable fact that everyone who voted for Donald Trump -- all 62,984,825 of them -- made the decision to elect a man who bragged about sexual assault, attacked a federal judge for being Mexican and grieving Gold Star parents who were Muslim, and has a long and well-documented history of racial discrimination in his businesses. That doesn’t mean that every Trump voter approved of those things, but at a minimum they accepted or overlooked them. And they did it without the demanding the basics that Americans used to expect from all presidential candidates, from releasing tax returns to offering substantive policy proposals to upholding common standards of decency.”

She has a great story to share for kids who experience bullying

Clinton talks at length about the role her mother played in her life, and it's clear that Dorothy Rodham was Hillary's greatest inspiration in life.

“There was a time when I was very little, and a neighborhood bully started pushing me around. I ran home to hide, but my mother met me at the door. ‘There’s no room for cowards in this house,’ she said. ‘Go back out there.’ The walk from my front door back to the street was one of the longest of my life. But I went. Mom, was right as usual.”

It's haunting how many vicious lies were spread about her, and how many believed them

Perhaps this is what as most deplorable about the 2016 election.

“Throughout the 2016 campaign, I watched how lies insinuate themselves into people’s brains if hammered often enough. Fact checking is powerless to stop it. Friends of mine who made calls or knocked on doors for me would talk to people who said they couldn’t’ vote for me because I had killed someone, sold drugs, and committed any number of unreported crimes, including how I handled my emails. The attacks were repeated so frequently that many people took it as an article of faith that I must have dome something wrong.”

She dismisses the idea that Democrats need to shift their priorities based on her loss

There's been a lot of debate within the Democratic Party over the past year about whether they need to do more to appeal to white working-class workers, even if it means pulling back from some of the issues around social justice that have become the party's hallmark in recent years. She clearly sees this as a false choice. I agree. The Democrats' problem isn't a failure to advocate policies that would benefit the white working class; it's a failure to explain to the white working class why and how these policies would help them.

“Democrats have to continue championing civil rights, human rights, and other issues that are part of our march toward a more perfect union. We shouldn’t sacrifice our principles to pursue a shrinking pool of voters who look more to the past than to the future.”

She makes an interesting comment about the politics of abortion

This is something many Democrats believe, and will utter in books, but are scared to death to say on the campaign trail for fear of alienating the extreme wing of the pro-choice movement (the same way that Republicans who believe in common-sense gun laws dare not alienate the NRA). I've said before that I think she lost a lot of critical votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin because of her unwillingness to adopt the measured position her husband took in 1992 (that abortion should be safe, legal and rare). I think if she would have spoken these words on the campaign trail, she might have won those decisive states.

“And to be clear, I believe there’s room in our party for a wide range of personal views on abortion. I’ve been working with Democrats and Republicans alike to reduce the number of abortions, in part by expanding access to birth control and family planning, and we’ve made progress. And I picked as my running mate Tim Kaine, a Democrat personally opposed to abortion because of his Catholic faith but supportive of women’s rights as a matter of law and policy.”

And finally, she makes a compelling argument about why it will take a "village" to make America great

I've come to believe that the root of many of the problems in this country is the unwillingness and failure of so many people to engage in caring for and helping the larger community, and their fellow humans, succeed. There is a disturbing lack of empathy among so many who seem to only care about their own lives and whether they can get ahead, regardless of what's happening to the world and people around them (never more evident than in the appalling lack of action following mass shootings). Whatever you think of Hillary Clinton as a politician or a leader, after reading this book, I have no doubt that she truly wants America to become the "village" she wrote about 20 years ago where American look after not just themselves, but each other.

“We all need each other, none of us is an island, an autonomous and independent ‘I,’ separated from the other, and we can only build the future of standing together, including everyone.” Tenderness “means to use our eyes to see the other, our ears to hear the other, to listen to the children, the poor, those who are afraid of the future.”

"Now what?" A toddler's question deserves an answer in wake of student protests

As students across the country walked out classes on Wednesday to mark the one-month anniversary of the Parkland massacre, I spent the morning at a peace prayer service where local Catholic school students walked out of their classes and into their church to pray, sing and talk about the need to combat violence and spread peace through our broken society.

At the end of the service, there was an awkward silence as the students waited for someone to dismiss them. At that point, a chatty toddler blurted out, "Now what?"

The question elicited a number of giggles from the gathering but also struck me as prophetic for what was happening across the country that day. The month since the Parkland massacre that killed 17 high school students and staff has seen a level of energy, passion and activism on the issue of gun violence unrivaled after any other mass shooting. It's also been met with a fierce backlash by the NRA and its supporters who are determined to see the outrage over our latest national tragedy fizzle without any meaningful change, as was the case after Columbine, Sandy Hook, and so many others. 

The question that hovers over the raging national debate on this issue is indeed, "Now what?" Will we see a repeat of what happened after 20 first-graders were massacred at Sandy Hook, where a few weeks of outrage failed to yield the change we wanted and needed as most Americans retreated into their bubbles of self-interest, while the fringe guns-for-everyone crowd remained mobilized and engaged in maintaining the status quo, or worse. I've thought about the children of Sandy Hook and their families many days since the tragedy, and continue to be haunted by those young lives needlessly lost, but I never did enough to convert those thoughts into ACTION. Now, after another preventable school massacre, we all have a chance to follow the example of the millions of high school students who have stood up since Parkland and shouted "Enough!" to a culture that values guns over life. 

We must do more than hope and pray for the right answer to that toddler's question. The answer will ultimately hinge on how willing those who are sickened by this endless stream of violence -- and the unwillingness of our political leaders to do anything to stop it -- to take up the fight, and remain engaged for the long haul. Each of us who believes we need sensible gun laws in this nation to prevent more innocent lives from being lost has the ability to make a difference in protecting our fellow citizens, if only we care enough to expend the time and energy.

Here's where I suggest we start:

Turn anger into action

It sounds simple, but this has been the missing ingredient after so many mass shootings that we mistakenly thought would be the "turning point." While there has been progress in California and other states in enacting sensible gun laws since Sandy Hook, the national climate has remained unchanged, and many states have actually loosened regulations. 

How does such senseless bloodshed, and the accompanying outrage by so many Americans in the immediate aftermath, lead to such inaction, or worse, NRA victories? The answer is really quite simple: The NRA keeps its fringe wing of All Guns, All the Time, mobilized, while the majority of Americans simply move on. 

That can't happen this time. The students in Florida have already scored a major victory by forcing the Florida Legislature to enact some common-sense laws, which would have been unthinkable a couple months ago in the "Gunshine State." While they don't go nearly far enough, they are an important start. We need to follow their example and write letters to our elected leaders, call them on the phone, and march for change. The gun lobby is waiting for us all to return to business as usual when the dust clears; we must not allow that dust to clear until the NRA loses its grip on our political system.

Start in your own community

It's easy to consume ourselves with the big-picture battles in Washington, D.C., and topics like renewing the national assault weapons ban. While we shouldn't lose sight of that as an ultimate goal, this battle will ultimately be won by starting at the grass roots level and first influencing change in our communities, counties and states. Join groups like your local chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. I have (they welcome dads too), and I've already discovered a host of simple ways to get involved in making a difference on this issue, from writing letters in support of state legislation like AB 2103 (which would mandate live-fire training in order to receive a concealed carry permit in California) to joining state Treasurer John Chiang's effort to pressure California's public pension funds to divest from companies that manufacture and sell firearms-related products that are banned in our state. 

While we're fortunate that California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, I've already learned that much more can and needs to be done to button them up so that they serve as a template for other states looking to enact similar reforms. No matter what our laws here, we will never be as safe as we can be as long as assault rifles are legal elsewhere and can potentially make their way here. Other things you can do is lobby your local school boards and city councils to be proactive about improving the security of our towns and schools, passing local laws to prevent dangerous people from getting their hands on dangerous weapons, and asking them to take the fight to the gun lobby. If leaders in Washington won't act, then it's up to our local leaders in our own towns to take up this fight and not shirk from the controversy that comes with standing up to those who value guns over life. 

Keep working to change public opinion

I've found out first-hand how frustrating and demoralizing it can be to engage the other side on social media over the gun epidemic. The NRA has done a brilliant job of sowing lies, paranoia and misinformation with the American public (most notably, that any gun control proposal is an attempt to take away every gun from every law-abiding citizen, or that the Second Amendment means ANY gun for ANYONE). We need to educate ourselves on the facts and then work to educate those who haven't yet made up their mind. Posting thoughts on our Facebook pages is well and good, but the impact will be limited if the vast majority of our "friends" already agree with us. We need to get outside our bubbles and seek out debates on this topic on community and other forums. 

Do your homework on how sensible gun laws have worked to reduce violence in other cities, states and countries, and shoot down (pun intended) the lies that we so often see from the NRA (one of its favorite topics for misinformation is the homicide crisis in Chicago and what's caused it; here's a piece from the Chicago Tribune that sets the record straight). But don't stop there. Call out members of Congress who take blood money from the NRA on their Facebook pages or Twitter accounts (my wife has started doing that); be prepared for some pretty harsh blowback, especially in red states, but if there are some independent-minded voters out there that we can sway, it's worth the grief. 

Recognize that the NRA is not as powerful as they want us to believe

One of the myths that has taken told is that the NRA is some giant, unstoppable political force. The media often portray the NRA as if it's the Galactic Empire from Star Wars. It's not true at all, and the NRA is scared to death that the American people -- and the politicians who do its bidding -- are going to figure it out. 

The NRA's success on this issue has been more about our failure to stay engaged and mobilized once these mass shootings fade from the news cycle. The NRA has only 5 million members nationwide, and many of them don't adhere to the fanatical views of its leadership, who act as if the Second Amendment is absolute and grants anyone any gun they so desire, conveniently ignoring the clause about a "well-regulated" militia. We are a country of 327 million people, most of whom want sensible measures to keep our people safe like truly universal background checks, age and mental health restrictions on gun ownership, waiting periods, and limits on high-capacity magazines and military-style weapons that can kill scores of people in seconds. The gun lobby's fierce backlash to the activism we've seen since Parkland (including tweeting out a photo of an AR-15 on the day of the student walkouts) is an attempt to taunt and intimidate us into thinking they can't be beat. 

The NRA's radical views have become normalized the same way the KKK's radical views once became normalized, because of its ability to strike fear in the heart of those who dare oppose it, and the unwillingness of political leaders to confront its lies. Once the politicians figure out that we don't fear the NRA's wrath, they will start to lose their fear about standing up to its frightening agenda. And once the politicians figure out that they have more to fear from our wrath than the NRA's, the organization's power will crumble. 

Make your dollars count

Perhaps the easiest thing to do is to simply give what you can monetarily to make your voice heard on this issue, or make companies that profit from the NRA's agenda pay a price in the form of your business. Join me in donating as little as $10 a month to a group like Everytown for Gun Safety. Deny your business to companies that do business with the NRA or gun manufacturers or retailers that act irresponsibly. Check the holdings of mutual funds in your 401(k) account and make sure they don't invest in companies like Sturm Ruger or American Outdoor brands that make semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, which has become the weapon of choice in these massacres. Find out which mutual fund companies have large holdings in these companies, and pressure them to divest. You can research this by using the Baron's stock tool.  

If every person in the country who cares about this issue would spend just 5 or 10 minutes a week doing something simple to make a difference (donating money, writing a letter, or just speaking out in a public forum), we can turn the tide at long last and, most importantly, save lives.

Why does God allow mass shootings to happen? Here's how I think He would answer that question

Gun-loving Christian: God, why do you allow mass shootings to happen?
God: Why do you ask me when the answer is in the mirror of your soul? Look into that mirror and ask yourself why you claim to worship Me and follow My Word, yet listen to nothing I have told you. Why do you allow weapons of evil to flood your society with sin and take the lives of my beloved children, for whom I gave my life on the Cross? Did you not hear me when I told you, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 
But woe unto you, you do hinder them by failing to protect them from these guns you have chosen to worship at my altar, these tools of Satan that you now invoke in my Name.
How dare you suggest that these deaths are punishment for turning away from me in your schools! Are you blind to the nations of the world whose governments do not worship me in name? Do you see mass violence ripping apart the societies of Japan, of China, of India, of Australia? Do I punish them for not claiming me as their Savior in public with their words? No, I say to you, for they follow my teachings through their actions, and not empty words, and are more worthy of My Kingdom than you ever will be.
Did you not listen to me when I told you, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's”? Did I punish Caesar or his people with acts of death and destruction for failing to worship me, for not bringing me into their temples or schools? No, but now you claim this violence as punishment for your government, and its institutions, and my beloved children for not allowing Me in their schools? Is this how you defile your Lord, by ignoring my message of Love and Peace and replacing it with one of vengeance and violence? 
Why do you sit idly by and allow my children to suffer and perish? Why do you ignore their cries, and the cries of their parents? Did you not hear me when I said to you, “Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” Do you not realize that by not doing what I commanded of you to Love your Neighbor, and protect My Children, you are rebuking Me?
Did you not hear me rebuke the Scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy, the same hypocrisy you now practice when you speak my Name but follow not my Words? 
I say of the gun-loving Christian conservatives of your nation, just as I said of the Scribes and Pharisees 2,000 years ago, “Do not follow their words. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.”
You have placed your guns before Me. You have placed these tools of evil on the shoulders of my people, and taken their lives with them, and now you ask me to explain why such death befalls your nation, when you do not lift a finger to protect your fellow man, woman and child? 
Truly I say, look but into the mirror of your soul. There you will find the answer in its darkness.

Why it's time to redefine what it means to be "pro-life"

I wasn't quite old enough to vote in the 1988 presidential election, but if I had been, I would have voted for George H.W. Bush, and a big reason would have been his "pro-life" position on abortion. As a Catholic, I spent years as an altar boy in the 1980s listening to priests at St. Callistus Church in El Sobrante speak of abortion as an assault on the sanctity of human life, and I agreed wholeheartedly.
All these decades later, I continue to follow my church's teachings on the morality of abortion, but my view of what it means to be "pro-life" has changed radically. I have never voted for a traditional Republican pro-life candidate for president, and have no intention of ever doing so. I no longer see that label as limited to the abortion debate but rather as encompassing a broad range of social justice issues that relate to the respect and defense of human life -- most notably, the gun epidemic ravaging our nation, and the refusal of so-called pro-life politicians such as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and President Donald Trump to do anything about it.

Victims of Parkland, Florida, shooting

Even in the context of abortion, I've come to believe that the social policies embraced and promoted by pro-choice politicians in areas such as sex education, health care and anti-poverty programs have been much more effective in reducing the frequency of abortion in our society than the empty words of pro-life conservatives whose only goal is to coerce women to do what they believe to be moral. As a Christian, a husband and a father, I believe that abortion is about much more than the endless debate over Roe v. Wade, and that respecting and defending life in our scarred society and world is about much more than whether a woman retains the right to terminate her pregnancy.
It's time to stop allowing politicians to monopolize the label of pro-life over a single issue, especially when they consistently show a callous disregard for human life in the positions they take on universal health care, the plight of immigrants and refugees, the environmental threat to the livability of our planet, and the scourge of gun violence that has taken the lives of our children in Newtown, Connecticut; Parkside, Florida; and Sutherland Springs, Texas, to name but a few.

It is time for all Americans to state loudly and clearly that politicians who turn a blind eye to the fundamental human right articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not pro-life in any way, shape or form, regardless of their position on Roe v. Wade. The children of Newtown and Parkland, and so many other places, were not afforded this most basic right. No amount of thoughts and prayers can change that fact.
Bill Clinton was never labeled, by supporters or detractors, as a pro-life president. But in my mind, his pro-life record stands above any president of my lifetime. As a new breed Democrat, he boldly reshaped the debate around abortion to encompass both moral and legal considerations during his 1992 presidential campaign, expressing a view that it should be "safe, legal and rare." And indeed, after peaking during the first Bush presidency in 1990, the abortion rate in the United States fell steadily during the Clinton years, and has continued to fall since.
But that's not why I consider him pro-life. As president, Clinton undertook one of the most successful humanitarian endeavors of the 20th century, ending the Bosnian genocide through military and diplomatic measures and saving countless civilian lives, despite opposition to his efforts at home. And, he signed the 1994 assault weapons ban into law, a ban that was long overdue and that was ultimately allowed to expire by "pro-life" congressional leaders who decided to place the wishes of those who demand unfettered access to military weapons of mass destruction above the safety of our children. Not surprisingly, in the years since the ban expired, the AR-15 assault rifle has become the weapon of choice in mass shootings across the United States.
I've been pleased to see my own church, through the inspirational leadership of Pope Francis, greatly expand its focus, emphasis and advocacy for a broad array of life issues over the years, whether it be the fundamental right of all people to health care, food and safe living conditions; its solidarity with immigrants and refugees seeking lives of dignity for themselves and their families (a banner at my church reads "All immigrants Welcome Here"); or the threats of climate change to the ability of people around the world to live in safe, stable environments and benefit from God's gift of natural resources.
The pillars of social justice are broad and interconnected, and the days when a political or religious leader can narrowly define advocacy for life as being about abortion, and abortion only, need to end.
As a humble sinner, I would never presume to speak for God. But I have listened to the Gospels many times throughout my life, and I have my own feelings about what Jesus Christ would say about those who claim to stand for life, while doing nothing to stop the assault on our children, our society and our planet. What He would say about those who market themselves in elections as pro-life, while ignoring the cries of the parents of Newtown and Parkland, or the fact that no where else in the advanced world do such acts of mass terror occur with such horrific frequency, only to be met by such indifference by those who have the power to do something about it.
It's summed up pretty well by a verse I've heard in church more times than I can count over the years, and which speaks volumes in the wake of  Parkland, Florida.
 "Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."-- Matthew 25:45

My wish for 2018: That history will matter again

“This will be final message from Saigon station. It has been a long fight and we have lost. . . . Those who fail to learn from history are forced to repeat it. Let us hope that we will not have another Vietnam experience and that we have learned our lesson. Saigon signing off.”

As we sign off from 2017 and look ahead to 2018, it would be wise to recall these words from Thomas Poglar, the CIA station chief who uttered America's last pronouncement from the Vietnam War as Saigon fell in April 1975. If the last couple years has taught me one thing, it's how little most Americans, particularly those who wield the greatest power today, seem know, or choose to learn, from history. And more than anything, it explains why so many choose to cling to elements of the past that should represent shame, while ignoring the elements that represent the most significant steps toward progress and justice that our democracy should symbolize.


And lest you think this is simply another attack on the unpresidential conduct of our current commander in chief, let me assure you that the inability, or unwillingness, to learn from history is not limited to any one ideology, but indeed is endemic to extremists on both the left and the right who dismiss facts and truth in pursuit of their own arrogant and misguided vision for our country, and the world.

Here's a quick rundown of where history lost in 2017, followed by a hope that 2018 will finally prompt most Americans to look to the past for real and meaningful guidance to the future.

1) The President of the United States chose to honor Native American code breakers from World War II by standing in front of a portrait of a president (Andrew Jackson) who committed probably the greatest genocide against Native Americans (the Trail of Tears) in American history. If that weren't enough, he capped the ridiculous display with a racist, Native American-themed slur against a political opponent.
2) Speaking of Andrew Jackson, Trump has made no secret of his infatuation with the occupant of the $20 bill and his desire to mold his "populist" presidency after our seventh president, who apparently best represented American greatness. Of course, any reading of history tells us that Andrew Jackson's vision of greatness was a country in which white males trampled over the basic rights of other Americans, most notably African-Americans and Native Americans, and matters of life and death and morality were inconsequential to the greater cause of seeing the United States expand its territory and power over all who would dare stand in its way. Jackson was the most staunchly pro-slavery president in early American history, and his unwillingness, or lack of interest, in confronting the insidious evil that was beginning to split the nation during his presidency ultimately led to the Civil War. In fairness, Jackson was a man of his times, and some of his actions did advance the principles of democracy and equality of opportunity, but in the era in which he presided, those principles were only relevant to white males, and for Donald Trump or anyone else to ignore that fact is to betray history.
3) Moving to the liberal end of the ideological spectrum, a recent survey indicated that half of Millennials say they wouldn't mind living in a communist or socialist country. This follows the shameful and pathetic praise that was heaped upon Cuban dictator Fidel Castro by some on the left (including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau) upon Castro's death in late 2016. Trudeau was richly, and deservedly, mocked over his comments, in which he called Castro "a remarkable leader." Indeed, Castro was remarkable -- remarkable at destroying lives, murdering innocent people, turning his country into an economic backwater of despair, plunging the world to the brink of nuclear war and representing all that was evil and destructive about the communist system during the Cold War. The fact that so many young people have such a sanguine view of communism today is yet another example of how little younger generations know, or care, about the lessons of history. No system in world history has done more to trample on basic human rights than communism; no system in world history has proven to be such an economic and moral disaster than communism; no system in world history has done more to threaten world peace, and human survival, than communism. History has already passed its judgment on communism; sadly, many Millennials seem eager to give it another chance. Since it would surely be too much to ask them to commit 18 hours of their time to watching Ken Burns' "Vietnam War," perhaps they can squeeze the final 2-hour episode which covers what happened to the people of Vietnam when communism "won."
4) The fact the #MeToo movement exploded onto the national scene at the end of 2016 shows how little was learned by the feminist movement of the 1960s and '70s and decades-long push for gender equality. The fact that so many men in positions of power continued to think they were entitled to treat women as sexual objects long after such behavior should have been stigmatized and universally condemned shows how little we have learned the lessons of the long fight for civil rights in this nation.
5) Anyone who watched the "Vietnam War" series, or any documentary about war, or read "All Quiet on the Western Front" or any novel about war, appreciates the common thread of war through history: It is unquestionably, undeniably, horrible for all involved. It's not something to be taken lightly, joked about, or casually tweeted about. The United States is at its greatest when it does everything in its power to find peaceful solutions to the world's problems, not when its president threatens to "totally destroy" nations with nuclear weapons in front of the United Nations, the world body that was established precisely to prevent the horrors of world war that consumed the planet in the 20th century.

Perhaps fittingly, 2017 ended with a White House ceremony to mark the signing  of the Republicans' tax bill, a piece of legislation that marked a betrayal of history by promising economic prosperity by cutting taxes and freeing the hand of corporations and the wealthy (the same promises that led to the Great Depression and Great Recession when unbridled faith in capitalism led to economic disaster). But I think the greatest betrayal of history in 2017 came out of the mouth of Senator Orrin Hatch during that ceremony, where he speculated that perhaps the most ill-informed, untruthful, crude, disrespectful and divisive president in American history may ultimately go down in history as its greatest. Those words were spoken a short distance from the Lincoln Memorial, in which history honors a man who was the polar opposite of Donald Trump in every way imaginable, a man who represented grace, humility, dignity and strength unsurpassed in American history, a man who summoned Americans to reach for the "better angels" of their nature and to bind up the nation's wounds at its hour of greatest peril and tragedy. Abraham Lincoln represents both everything we should learn from history, and everything Americans have chosen to forget.

Orrin Hatch should rest assured that whatever becomes of the Trump presidency, the words inscribed in the Lincoln Memorial will never be spoken about Donald Trump or himself:

"In this temple, as in the hearts of the American people for whom he saved the union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln lives forever."

Whatever the future holds in 2018 and beyond, America's hope for achieving true greatness will ultimately hinge on the ability and willingness to learn the lessons from its past -- both from its achievements and its sins.  That was the message from Thomas Poglar as he signed off from Saigon in 1975, and, more than ever, it needs to be the message today.

"The Last Jedi": A flawed thrill ride that falls short of greatnesss

Update 03/28: Since this post, I have seen the movie a second time and changed some of my views of the film. This is from a post on my Facebook page:

I finally made it to a second viewing of "The Last Jedi" yesterday. The fact Todd Perlman, Chris Treadway and I were the only three people in the theater for the matinee made for a somewhat surreal experience.
I have to say I enjoyed it much more the second time around, and that I was a little too harsh in my initial critiques (I fell victim to hyper-analyzing the story lines and underlying plot of the movie). Knowing exactly how the story would unfold, I was able to enjoy the movie on its own terms, and appreciate the wonderful cinematography, special effects and even top-notch acting and narrative. It has a beautiful flow and pacing, and I now think it ranks among the greatest in the franchise.

Edit

Channeling all my fellow Star Wars nerds. Here's my review of "The Last Jedi" (trying not provide spoilers, but if you haven't seen it, read at your own risk).
Overall, the movie had its moments and provided some nice twists and turns that kept me guessing and entertained for all of the nearly three hours, but I also thought it had some significant flaws. In my mind, it doesn't come close to measuring up with "A New Hope" or "The Empire Strikes Back," as some critics are suggesting, and is a notch or two below "Force Awakens" and "Rogue One" (the latter of which I think is the best movie since the original trilogy). "Last Jedi" is more on par with "Return of the Jedi," a Star Wars movie that was more entertaining than enriching or thought-provoking.

Here's a rundown of what I thought worked best:

1) Daisy Ridley gave another standout performance as Rey. She brings a depth and complexity of character to the story that was sorely missing from the whiny, brooding Anakin Skywalker of the prequels, and I thought she largely carried the movie.

2) The movie plumbed new spiritual depths in the Star Wars franchise, which for the most part worked well (though The Force is being stretched to dimensions that now truly require a leap of faith). The manner in which the movie explored failure as a pathway to spiritual and personal growth was a nice new element, and the brief return of Yoda was a definite surprise and highlight.

3) I thoroughly enjoyed the last 30 minutes, particularly the nostalgic nod to "Empire Strikes Back." The Rey-Kylo-Snoke confrontation featured some impressive twists and turns, plus a thrilling lightsabre duel, though I felt it mirrored a little too closely the Luke-Vader-Palpatine dynamic from "Return of the Jedi," particularly where it comes to the flawed arrogance of Snoke and Palpatine.

But there was plenty about the movie that I thought fell short of the mark:

1) It fell victim in places to the main problem of the prequels, in that action sequences and special effects got in the way of developing the deeper story. The movie lacked the pacing that marks the best movies in the franchise (particularly "Empire Strikes Back"), in which thrilling action sequences are interspersed with quieter moments that allow the characters to grow, develop and build relationships. In "Last Jedi," it felt like the opening battle never really ended. The sequences between Luke and Rey on the island seemed rushed and clunky at times, and lacked the smooth flow of the dual story lines that worked so well in "Empire Strikes Back," where each scene moved the story and characters forward in significant ways.

2) The dialogue was largely flat (George Lucas could have written some of those lines) and the humor, which always plays an underappreciated but vital role in the best Star Wars films, seemed forced. See-Threepio is being wasted in these movies, and the movie definitely suffered in comparison with "The Force Awakens" by the loss of Harrison Ford's Han Solo, whose sarcastic wit gave that movie the spunk that marked the original trilogy and was painfully absent from the stuffy prequels. Without Solo, this movie drifted back toward a degree of stuffiness. The light-hearted touch that new characters brought to last year's "Rogue One" was missing here.

3) While Rey shined, and Kylo Ren and Leia (in Carrie Fisher's final role) also had some memorable moments, many of the other characters were either annoying, boring or lacked any real development as the story progressed. Po Dameron was the worst, coming across as a shallow, impetuous, hot head whose miscalculations probably kill as many innocent people in this movie as anyone. Finn remains basically in the same mode of "Force Awakens," and his new sidekick brought nothing of interest to the movie for me (I found the whole plot line of their journey to the casino planet to find a master code-breaker a waste of time that in the end had no significance for the arc of the story, other than to introduce a young kid who seems destined to become a hero in future movies). Mark Hamill couldn't bring to his role what Harrison Ford brought to Han Solo last time around, and he really didn't capture the elder statesman-like gravitas of Alec Guinesses' Obi-Wan Kenobi, though he rose to the occasion as well as could be expected at the end. And the overarching First Order vs. Resistance plot left much to be desired (a slow-motion, three-hour siege that really took the story nowhere important).

4) The movie's handling of Grand Leader Snoke was a disappointment, and seems to leave little hope for more insight into his character. If George Lucas' fatal flaw with the prequels was his insistence on explaining everything in minute detail (including interstellar trade policies), one problem with this trilogy is that it's leaving a bit too much to the imagination.

In fairness, this might have been the most challenging movie in the series to execute, given the many unanswered questions and competing character narratives from both "The Force Awakens" and the original trilogy. To produce a sequel that truly matched "The Empire Strikes Back" in scope and grandeur was a monumental task. While this was an infinitely more satisfying second installment than "Attack of the Clones" from the prequels (which I rank as far and away the worst Star Wars movie ever), I wish it would have come closer to reaching the heights of Empire, which remains No. 1 for me (though last year's "Rogue One" is a close second).

My ranking of all nine Star Wars movies:

1. The Empire Strikes Back

2. Rogue One

3. A New Hope

4. The Force Awakens

5. The Last Jedi

6. Return of the Jedi

7. Revenge of the Sith

8. The Phantom Menace

9. Attack of the Clones

What history has to say about tax cuts and trickle down economics

The Republicans' embrace of a mammoth tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy -- and their tired arguments that they will pay for themselves by sparking economic growth -- shows once again how little our elected leaders, and the people who elect them, understand, or care, about history.
We've heard this story many times before, and it rarely seems to end well. You know the line: If only we put more money into the hands of corporations and individuals -- particularly those who are already swimming in it -- and loosen the regulations stifling free enterprise, unfettered capitalism will handle the rest. The wealthy will spend, corporations will invest and hire, and profits generated as a result will trickle down for all to enjoy.
If only it worked out that way in reality. This was the mantra embraced by Republicans as far back as the 1920s -- when they controlled the levers of government as they do today -- and what did Americans get as a result? An unprecedented economic collapse and the Great Depression.

Fifty years later, Ronald Reagan came along and promised much of the same. He got his big tax cuts early in his administration, and sure enough, the long-slumping economy soon enough turned around. Vindication, right? Not quite. For one thing, the economic ills of the 1970s and early 1980s largely boiled down to the unique problem of stagflation -- a stagnant economy and runaway inflation -- rather than tax rates. Most economists credit the Federal Reserve's high interest rate policy -- not Reagan's tax cuts -- that finally snuffed out inflation and lit a fire under the economy. As for the tax cuts, far from trickling down to the masses, they helped lead to the massive income inequality we see today, never came close to paying for themselves, and ultimately blew a hole in the deficit that forced both Reagan and George H.W. Bush to enact tax increases.
Of course, the flip side of the Republican argument that tax cuts for those at the top unleash economic growth is that tax hikes on those at the top stunt growth and deter investment. At least, that's what they promised would happen after Bill Clinton hiked taxes in the early 1990s to address the growing deficit. The result? One of the greatest economic booms of the 20th century. Go figure.
But the clear evidence that the Republican tax mantra was not supported by any real evidence didn't stop George W. Bush from clinging to it yet again when he took office in 2001. With the economy finally slowing after years of stunning growth, Bush and the Republicans turned to -- you guessed it --- tax cuts as the answer. Those cuts were coupled with trillions of dollars spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (after all, it's soldiers, not taxpayers, who should have to sacrifice in time of war), again blowing a hole in the deficit, and a general attitude toward letting Wall Street and the financial industry do whatever they want (because, after all, that thirst for profit will ultimately trickle down to the rest of us; as the 1980s taught us, "Greed is good."). With Republicans again in total control of government for much of the early 2000s (as they were in the 1920s), they stuck to the old playbook of low taxes, loose money and little regulation. We also know how that story ended, much as it did the first time around. We got the Great Recession, which easily could have been another depression if not for Barack Obama's shrewd stewardship of the crisis, for which he got unbelievably little credit as Republicans and voters assailed him for not fixing things quickly enough. For Obama, it was a little like stopping the car from plunging off the cliff, only to be relentlessly criticized for leaving it with some scratches.

And as we saw with their votes on the tax bill in the dark of night Friday (complete with scribbled pages of last-minute changes), Republicans are intent sticking with that dust-covered 1920s playbook that should have been tossed into the ash heap of history long ago. When your favorite plays keep ending in disaster for your team, most coaches know that it's time to change things up. But that's a lesson apparently lost on politicians, who rarely have to pay the price for their misadventures in the name of ideological purity.
Will the Republicans and their backers finally show some accountability if their latest foray into tax cuts once again fails to deliver on their promises? That would be a first. The more likely outcome is that the harmful effects of the policy won't be felt for years, by which time the architects of it will be long gone and already pointing fingers and placing blame on those who have the misfortune of being tasked with cleaning up a mess they didn't create, as happened in the late 2000s. That's the way it usually happens in a world where voters place their trust in the hands of politicians who tell them what they want to hear, rather than taking the time to learn what history has taught us all time and again.