Clear plan to protect local teachers, students desperately needed

Below is my column in today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune (online at their website here).

Earlier this week, the Grand Haven Area Public School district (GHAPS) released their plan for school this fall. 

In response to surveys from parents, the district is offering two options. One option is in-person learning that may have to return to at-home remote learning, if needed. The other option is an entirely online learning environment run by an outside organization and taught primarily by GHAPS teachers. The options look to be similar in the Spring Lake district when that plan is released, likely sometime this week. 

The first thing I want to say is that I do not envy the task of the school boards of Grand Haven or Spring Lake, nor do I envy the decisions the administrations in those districts must make. Making  difficult decisions that will impact thousands of families, which involve possible life or death realities, in the midst of a global pandemic and a rapidly changing landscape of news and developments is massively difficult. Making these decisions for my own parish here in town, St. John’s Episcopal Church, has been hard. I cannot imagine what it is like on a school district level.

My concern, however, is with how the plans for social distancing will be put into place for each building. Those are beginning to be released for each building but there are no district-wide standards. For example, in the high school there will be three classes a day to reduce passing time in the hall and limit turnover in student to teacher contact but no reduction in students in the building in any given day. Face coverings will be required in all buildings—though, oddly enough not during physical education at Lakeshore, indicating that there will be physical education this fall. If there is, studies have shown that six feet of distance is not enough during physical exertion. 

The lack of clear and district-wide standards for what in-person learning means that we are already seeing very different decisions being made by different buildings. While each building is different, and what each age group can accomplish varies, the lack of district-wide requirements (for example, no in-person singing or physical exertion without significant distance, all plans must require at least six feet of distance between students, no large group gatherings, etc.) is making it difficult for parents to make decisions about whether to return and only increasing the anxiety of our educators.  

The GHAPS Superintendent, Andrew Ingall, has said that there is a priority for staff and student safety. I absolutely believe that is his goal. I hope the district will look to other schools in state and country and put together a district-wide articulation of clear requirements for in-person learning that makes that priority evident and clear.

After all, one of the other reasons we have some of the best districts in the state is because of our teachers. One of the biggest problems in this national conversation about schools reopening is a lack of attention to the risks teachers will face returning to in-person instruction, the risks that their families will face given the particularly high rates of asymptomatic transmission among children and teenagers. We must make sure our teachers know that they are not seen as childcare so parents can get back to work, but that they are an essential part of our children’s lives and development and that their safety—given that their risks are much higher than the children they will instruct—is of the highest importance.

When plans are developed for each individual building, there need to be clear articulations of just how social distancing is going to be achieved. Many schools are alternating school days or schedules, so that there will not be the same amount of people in the building as in normal times. Depending on what in-person enrollment numbers look like, I am not sure how students will be able to be spaced six-feet apart in classrooms that are already full. Some indications are that a three-foot rule might be followed instead in the districts, but no explanation for how that is a safe decision. Administrators right now seem just to be hoping that lower in-person enrollment will make distancing possible. But hope is not enough in times like this.

There needs to be a clear articulation of plans for designated entrances and exits, closing off common space (or repurposing it so that teachers can properly distance their students), floor markings to direct foot traffic. Ideally, there should be upgrades made to ventilation to ensure we are not just spreading an airborne virus throughout the building and also upgrades to the restrooms to limit contact. Cafeterias cannot continue as they did before—which would basically be large crowds of people dining in person, a sure way to pass along the virus. Some buildings (like Lakeshore) have made plans to address this, but there is not district-wide consistency on activities like this which have been demonstrated to pose significant risk of viral transmission.

More than two-hundred and fifty employees were not able to return to work in Georgia’s largest school district. Another school in Indiana had to shift to online learning after only two days of being open. Three students in Mississippi tested positive at one school within the first week of return. However we return to in-person learning in our area, my hunch is that we will shut back down after not that much time. The question is how much risk will teachers and students be exposed to during that time we are in-person. 

If our local districts are going to resume in-person learning this fall, the plan for how we will protect the health of our children and our teachers must be more than a promise of social distancing with no indication how it can be achieved. I hope those plans are articulated soon, with attention to districts who have already identified ways to achieve these goals. We must not jeopardize the lives of our teachers in a rush to get kids back in school. 

The Rev. Dr. Jared C. Cramer, Tribune community columnist, serves as rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven. Information about his parish can be found at www.sjegh.com.  

A nation burns after the winter of our delay

Below is my column in today's issue of the Grand Haven Tribune.

It seemed that circumstances in our country could not get more difficult, more tense and more painful.

Over the past several months, we have sought to survive under a pandemic that has claimed over 100,000 lives, infected nearly 2 million people and raised the unemployment rate to a Depression-era 14.7 percent. The advice of medical experts has been rejected in an unprecedented and partisan manner by many people, turning following the advice of doctors and epidemiologists into a political litmus test.

It seemed that circumstances could not get more difficult.\

Then a deli in Minneapolis called the police because they believed the $20 bill that a patron, George Floyd, was using to buy his dinner was counterfeit. Eventually, four officers in total responded to this incident. Police have said that Floyd resisted and that he “appeared to be under the influence.” A security camera from a nearby restaurant shows two officers removing him from the vehicle, handcuffing him and bringing him to the sidewalk where they sit him down. After a third officer arrives, they bring him to a vehicle but he fell to the ground. The officers have claimed he intentionally fell to the ground to avoid getting into the police vehicle, but the video does not clearly show this to be the case.

Then, while handcuffed and lying on the ground, Officer Derek Chauvin pressed his right knee against Floyd’s neck – an illegal police procedure – while casually keeping his left hand in his pocket. Former police officers and use-of-force experts have criticized the knee on Floyd’s neck and the casual postures as horrific and a blatant disregard of police procedure.

Officer Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds. During that time, Floyd repeatedly told the officer, “Please” and “I can’t breathe.” You can hear him moaning, groaning and sobbing. Bystanders urged the police to let him go, to get him into the back of a car, anything.

Floyd told Officer Chauvin, “I’m about to die.” In response, Officer Chauvin told him to relax. The police asked what he wanted and he said, “Please, the knee in my neck, I can’t breathe.” After a bit more time, Floyd cried out, “Mama!” He said, “My stomach hurts, my neck hurts, everything hurts.” He asked for water, and was given none. There is no indication of the police saying anything to Floyd’s cries for help, including when he begs them, “Don’t kill me.”

Floyd then went silent and became unresponsive. After he was unresponsive, Officer Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s next for another two minutes and 53 seconds. He did not remove his knee until an emergency service (EMS) vehicle arrived, at which point EMS placed Floyd’s unresponsive body on a stretcher. Contrary to the preliminary results from the official autopsy, which said underlying conditions had been at fault, an independent one has now determined asphyxiation as the cause of death.

George Floyd now joins an uncomfortably long list of names. Sean Reed. Breonna Taylor. Michael Brown. Philando Castile. Botham Jean. Alton Sterling. Sandra Bland. Atatiana Jefferson. Freddie Gray. Tamir Rice. Keith Childress. Stephon Clark. Aiyana Stanley-Jones. Walter Scott. Antwon Rose Jr. Keith Scott. Jonathan Ferrell. Jordan Edwards. Amadou Diallo. Sean Bell. Terrence Crutcher. John Crawford. Oscar Grant. Corey Jones. All of these people had their lived ended by police officers. They had no due process. Many were innocent of any wrongdoing.

Furthermore, white people and their fear of black bodies has resulted in the deaths of so many others. Trayvon Martin. Ahmaud Arbery. The Charleston 9. Renisha McBride. Jordan Davis. And thousands of thousands throughout the history of our country, many whose names will never be known.

It’s not surprising that Black America – and those who share the outrage of our black siblings – has erupted. Many of the protests that have taken place across the country have been marked by their nonviolence. Indeed, in our own state, in cities like Muskegon and Flint, police officers have not greeted protestors with riot gear and tear gas. Instead, they have said they share the outrage of the protestors and have sought to form deeper bonds and demand true justice. In several areas where the protests turned violent (including Grand Rapids), video and witness evidence indicates that a few white outsiders did the vast amount of the violence – whether out of an anarchist disdain for police or a twisted desire to discredit the protests, we don’t know.

And, yes, some originally nonviolent protestors felt their rage boil over. The response of many in leadership has made it clear that far too many in our country value buildings and personal property over the continued slaughter of black bodies. Our country has looted any possible wealth and path to prosperity that people of color might have for years, for decades, for more than a century. We have looted the livelihood of people and color. Why are we surprised at the anger when those in authority take it a step further and kill their sons and daughters?

Two weeks after the California Watts riots of 1965 and the race riots in Harlem in 1964, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. tried to explain the cause of rioting to a white audience. He was clear, “Riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. ... But, in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again.”

We must turn from our winters of delay. The cause of racial justice, the reform of police practices, and the willingness to take a hard look at our own internal conscious and unconscious biases must not be a partisan task. Every single one of us, no matter the side of the aisle we sit on, must engage in self-examination, repentance and the very hard questions of what must be done to begin making this right.

Our country is bleeding, but the black parts of our country have been bleeding for quite a while, and very few paid attention. Hopefully, you are paying attention now. Hopefully, it is not too late.

Where is the America we used to see in times of disaster?

Below is my column from today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune. It is also on their website online here.

I don’t know about you, but I have been tremendously disheartened by the discourse during this time of pandemic and stay home orders.

In other times of national disaster and tragedy, people came together to make sacrifices to protect the greater good of the community. Families sent their young women and men off to war, knowing the likelihood that they may not return. People went without some necessities so that they could be used in the production necessary to turn the tide of battle. People gave sacrificially to those impacted by the disaster, trying to lift up those whose lives have been upended.

We are in the midst of the most dangerous pandemic the world has seen in a century. As of this past Monday, nearly 300,000 people have died and 4.3 million people have been infected with this horrible disease. Our country has been hit the hardest, with 1.4 million cases and over 81,456 people dead, once again, as of this past Monday. Only a few countries have more cases per 1 million people and given the massive shortages in testing equipment in the USA, it is likely that our total case number is actually much higher than being reported. Worldwide, nearly 7% of confirmed cases of COVID-19 have resulted in death. The actual mortality rate is likely lower than that—once more, because there are likely many more cases than currently confirmed, but even the lower estimates by some scientists of a 1% mortality rate is still ten times higher than the normal flu.

In response to this deadly disease, one that has claimed more US lives than the entire Vietnam War, we are not seeing a coming together to vanquish this disease. We’re not seeing a spirit of shared sacrifice and cooperation, a willingness to give up what may be yours by right in order to protect others and lessen the infection rate and lethality of this disease. Instead, we are seeing protests of stay at home orders, protests that often feature assault weapons, confederate flags, and other hate and violence-filled images. People are insisting that they will not give up one single perceived right—even when medical professionals know that giving up some freedoms in this pandemic will absolutely save lives.

Despite the insistence of some people that this is not a good time to place blame on anyone, it is a time to hold leaders accountable for the decisions they are making. And the tone, rhetoric, and language from our President has only exacerbated division in a time when we need to come together. He has encouraged debunked theories and myths about the disease, been untruthful to a degree never before seen in a time of national crisis, and used this time to attack political rivals and anyone who might question the decisions of his administration.

That language has carried down into his supporters and those on the far right who have been emboldened by this presidency. And so we have seen horrible news stories these past several days. In Oklahoma City, four McDonald’s employees, aged 16 and 18, were shot by a woman when they told her that the dining room was closed. In Holly, Michigan, a 68-year-old man wiped his nose on a clerk at a Dollar Store when told he needed to wear a mask.  And in Flint, a woman shot and killed a security guard at a Family Dollar when he would not let her in without a mask.

This is obscene.

We cannot know for sure what restrictions and actions will guarantee us safety from this disease. In truth, there is very little that will guarantee safety. However, staying at home has helped to flatten the curve so that hospitals will not be overwhelmed. Anyone who has seen photos of overwhelmed hospitals in cities where the curve was not flattened, who has heard stories of people dying in hallways and bodies stacked in rooms, must know how essential flattening the curve is. While wearing a mask is not protection against getting the coronavirus, it lessens the likelihood that an asymptomatic carrier will pass the disease on to others.

Businesses and people are absolutely struggling during these restricted times. And we should do everything we can to help those struggling. Several churches have increased the aid they offer. We must continue those efforts so that businesses do not feel the need to open up before it can be done safely and with minimal risk to their employees.

My own congregation, St. John’s Episcopal, has increased our assistance to people needing help with utilities. We have also partnered with Lakeshore Latinas, Movimiento Cosecha Holland, and Community Action House to create an Immigrant Relief Fund to assist immigrants—many of whom have no access to the social safety nets the rest of us do. Thanks to a generous grant of $20,000 from the Emergency Needs Fund (a partnership between the Grand Haven Area Community Foundation, the Holland Area Community Foundation, and Greater Ottawa County United Way), a $5,000 grant from Herman Miller Cares, and numerous other donations, we have raised over $40,000 that is being used to help people with groceries, rent, and utilities.

If you want to believe conspiracy theories and trust YouTube videos over infectious disease specialists, that is your right. It is still a free country. However, you do not have the right to engage in violence against people trying to do their jobs. Unless you have a medical condition, you do not have the right to ignore rules surrounding masks and social distancing. When you do, you are not only putting other people’s lives at risk because you might be an asymptomatic carrier, you are also very likely only increasing the amount of time businesses will need to be shut down.

We need to return to what makes this country great, to the spirit of cooperation and self-sacrifice that we have seen in prior times of crisis and disaster. We are better Americans, better Michiganders, better members of the Tri-Cities community than what has been on display these past several weeks. And if we don’t start doing better, more people will die. Obey the law. Follow restrictions. Give generously to those in need. This is how you can save lives.

The Rev. Dr. Jared C. Cramer, Tribune community columnist, serves as rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven. Information about his parish can be found at www.sjegh.com.  

Caring Nearness in a Time of Distance

Below is my column in today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune.

I never thought I would crave some things that were routine in my life, things which are now impossible to come by as we live under the current “Stay Home, Stay Safe” order and try to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

I miss popping over to Arturo’s Tacos, Mr. Kozak’s, Don Luis or Righteous Cuisine for a quick lunch when the day has gone long and I just need to sneak out of the office.

I miss the familiar sights of my morning commute to the church, the question of whether I’ll be ahead of or behind that school bus stopping time this morning, whether my favorite Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office deputy will be hanging out where the speed drops to 45 mph so I can show him I learned my lesson after a stop (or two).

I miss the flow of people in and out of the church office, familiar faces poking in to say “hi” or to come and pet our standard poodle puppy, Maisie, who will function as the church dog until she is trained as a therapy dog for my wife’s work.

I miss the laughter and hugs of Sunday once-a-month family dinners, watching cousins and adult siblings connect and feeling the joy that physical presence can bring.

And I miss the altar. I miss the grounding that it gives me to stand there. I miss holding up bread made in the homes of our parishioners and wine chosen by parishioners, saying prayers over that bread and wine and knowing that Christ becomes truly and physically present to us once more.

I miss the nearness of all the things I love and I yearn for this distancing to be over.

We’re learning how to make it work, I think, as best as we can.

One of my parishioners who doesn’t even like doing email joined our Tuesday afternoon Zoom Bible Study that I lead. Seeing her face put the largest smile on my face as she pushed herself to learn a new technology, something she truly tries to avoid.

I’ve loved seeing all the Facebook posts supporting local businesses and restaurants that are trying as hard as they can to stay afloat. The Tri-Cities Pastors’ Gathering, of which I am a part, has been more active then ever in our Facebook group, sharing ideas and advice, prayer requests and hope. And each church, in its own way, is trying to figure out how calling people to worship can happen in a time of pestilence and quarantine.

But we all know, deep down, that this is not who we are. We are not minds connected by pixels and fiber-optic lines. We are not souls trapped by bodies that we will hopefully somehow overcome through technology or spirituality. We are embodied beings, people whose existence is inextricably bound up with the bodies we inhabit. That is why Christians believe that when God came to save us, he took on a body. He felt the limitations of mortality: got hungry, felt a backache when he picked up something wrong, even felt the rush of anger when he saw a perceived injustice.

It’s too early for us to know how this will all end, how long it will take for life to return to some semblance of normal. It feels like the news changes every day and a column I write on Monday could easily be obsolete by Wednesday. But when it does end, even as we perhaps continue some of our newfound virtual and online skills, our salvation will be a bodily and physical one.

We’ll walk down Washington Avenue with summer tourists, perhaps no longer annoyed by their presence but grateful that all those bodies create resources and support businesses we love. I know I look forward to sitting on the sidewalk bar at Long Road, enjoying one of their exquisite cocktails as we watch people walk by. I’ll see someone I know and run to give them a hug, not afraid that it might result in the death of one of us.

I’ll walk back into my church building, with all my people. The walls will vibrate with the resounding organ and the joyful voices. We will grip hands tightly at the Peace. We will eat the Body and drink the Blood, understanding better now than we ever had why it is that God gives the church sacraments – outward and physical expressions of inward and spiritual grace. Because we need to experience salvation in our bodies in order for it truly to become real.

And I really hope that we learn something from this, not just a renewed gratitude for physical presence and embodied grace, but a renewed compassion for all the bodies we have ignored, seen as not our responsibility, locked in cages or told were inherently disordered just because of the way God made them or where they were born.

Having had our lives uprooted – just a bit – by this pandemic, I hope we have more grace for those whose lives are entirely destroyed by violence and poverty and famine.

I hope we realize that all bodies are our responsibility. I hope we do better. I’ll try, and I hope you will, too.

Let Librarians—and Not Activist Parents—Run the Library: Further Remarks to the Grand Haven Area Public Schools Board of Education

Thank you, Board of Education, for the opportunity to speak to you once more. As I said last time I spoke, my name is Jared Cramer. I’m a class of 2000 graduate of Grand Haven and for the past ten years I have been the priest at St. John’s Episcopal Church here in town.

I must admit that I am disappointed to stand before you once more. I am not disappointed because of you, to be clear. Quite the opposite, I am proud that our district Superintendent and Board of Education continue to support our librarians and the work they do in curating content for our children and enabling parents to be actively engaged in their children’s reading habits. I’m disappointed that a small group of parents in our community continues to believe that their standards for the content of books and how those books are accessed should trump those of library associations and trained professionals.

The claim being employed tonight is that the only concern is about sexual content in books for young teens. I continue to believe that claim is false, but I want to for a moment lift my skepticism and engage that claim directly.

The difficultly with what these parents are asking for is the question of who will set the standard for what qualifies as sexual content. The parents leading this charge are now using Michigan Law 722.675 as their standard—however, they are not taking the time to read the entirety of the law. To be considered sexually explicit in this law, sexual matter must meet all the laws criteria, including, “Considered as a whole, it appeals to the prurient interest of minors” and “considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, and scientific value for minors.” On the clear wording of this law, the books being criticized do not meet the standard set out for the inappropriate dissemination of sexually explicit matter.

Now, if you listen to their criticisms, they will say it is not just about what the law says but it is about sexual organs being used in a sexual way… and maybe also lewd profanity and extreme violence… so you can see how slippery the slope has already become. What constitutes lewd profanity instead of just profanity? What makes violence extreme instead of just violent? What do either of those have to do with sexual content, if that is the actual driving concern?

Furthermore, why are these categories highlighted but not other content that may be morally objectionable to young teens, like drug use? Will that be added to the list as well? What about other sins? Is the goal to remove sin from books? Just some sins? Who decides?
What sorts of books would be restricted by the system proposed by these parents?

• The Great Gatsby by F. Scottt Fitzgerald
• The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
• The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
• Beloved, by Toni Morrison, which was objected to by a parent at a previous meeting—even though it won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize.
• The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
• Brave New World  by Aldous Huxley
• Go Tell it on the Mountain by James Baldwin
• Rabbit, Run by John Updike
• And Are you there God? It’s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume

Now, are all of these books appropriate in a middle school library? That’s a fantastic question, and one that should be answered by library professionals. Because if instead you have a single box for opting in or opting out of sexual content, with no attention paid to the literary context of that content, then parents will unknowably opt their kids out of the greatest literature of our time.

There is no need for our district to create an entirely new system of categorizing books based upon content some parents find objectionable. As I said to you earlier, there is already a system in place, a professional program at the Library of Congress that uses experts in the field and identifies the proper age of the audience. Our school librarians are trained to use these systems.

And this system works! If a parent believes a book may have been inappropriately categorized, they can raise that concern with the librarian who can determine if it should be moved to a different library. That’s already happened with one book that concerned a parent. And if you, as a parent, want to keep your kid from reading books by Salinger and Steinbeck and Baldwin and Updike, you can do that. Just give that list to the librarian.

Claims that parents don’t have time to find out which books have sexual content are false. Just google the question and you will find plenty of lists of books deemed inappropriate by some people. Whose list should one use when restricting your kid’s reading? Whichever one you, as a parent agree with. The fact that there are so many, and they differ so wildly, just demonstrates the point that there is not a clear line that can be drawn. Instead, you, as a parent, have to be active and engaged. You have to determine what sort of content is appropriate or not appropriate for your child. But you do not, as a parent, have the right to demand that the library flag certain books —without regard to literary content— as objectionable for other children who are not your own.

And why would I, as a parent, want my middle school child someday to have access to this kind of content? Because it helps. By reading in the pages of a book, kids can explore what is going on in their bodies safely.  Because I want my kid, as she grows up, to confront difficult and unsettling content—and then to know she can talk to me about it. And together, we’ll discuss what we believe and how that affects how we live in the world. Please, Board of Education, continue to support parents making these decisions for their own kids. Continue to support our librarians’ goal of helping parents engage with their kids reading habits. And please do not enable one group of parents to create their own category of objectional content for all students in our district.

Some Words on Christian Socialism

Below is my column in today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune.

By the time this column is published, we will know the results of the 14 states voting on Super Tuesday. Given the polling so far, it looks like Bernie Sanders seems likely to continue the momentum built in early contests. I had been leaning toward Pete Buttigieg, but now I’m pretty firmly in the Sen. Warren camp. That said, the rise of Bernie has happened hand in hand with continued hand-wringing about socialism, including the version Bernie supports: democratic socialism.

The scare concepts linking democratic socialism to communism are unfortunate, albeit rather expected. The most salient difference between the two is that democratic socialists believe in that – a democracy. Communist forms of government are not democratic because the people do not get to vote those who represent them. In communist systems, the state controls everything and a small group of people control the state.

In communism, there is no such thing as private property – everything is held by the state and individuals are given their basic needs from the state. Furthermore, Bernie is not advocating a wholesale government take-over of all means of production (classical socialism), but instead is arguing for the government to take over those systems best handled by that mechanism. We already do this in America, believing it makes most sense for the government to provide for a military, for a safety-net for the poor through Social Security and Medicare, and to have a hand in ensuring there is adequate public housing.

Bernie’s argument, for example, is that the current insurance-based system is an inherently inefficient way of paying for health care in our country and that Medicare for All would more effectively accomplish this work. Given the fact that our health care costs are far above any other developed countries (all of whom have some form of government provided care) and our outcomes are below other countries, I find his article persuasive.

Don’t get me wrong, I preferred Pete’s approach of Medicare for all who want it, enabling people to make the choice whether to buy into a government-run plan. Then it would be up to private industry to compete in the market with the public option. And I think Sen. Warren’s path to Medicare for All has a stronger chance of moving forward.

Regardless of who the candidate winds up being, I, for one, will not be scared by language of socialism. One of the most significant reasons is because Christian socialism is a significant part of the history of my own tradition of Anglican Christianity. This movement, particularly strong in the United Kingdom, began in the 19th century as an argument that many socialist concepts can clearly be supported based upon the text of Holy Scripture and the teachings of Jesus Christ. There was also a strong Christian socialist movement among Calvinists in France (the birthplace of the Calvinist movement) throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries.

In the early 20th century, the Episcopal bishop of Utah, Spencer Spalding, put it most succinctly when he wrote, “The Christian Church exists for the sole purpose of saving the human race. So far, she has failed, but I think that socialism shows her how she may succeed. It insists that men cannot be made right until the material conditions be made right. Although man cannot live by bread alone, he must have bread. Therefore, the Church must destroy a system of society which inevitably creates and perpetuates unequal and unfair conditions of life.”

Spalding goes on to argue that competition always results in unequal and unfair conditions. I would not go so far as that, as I do believe that competition has the possibility of creating significant growth and development. The problem is when that competition is wholly unfettered by the state. Because then, those with significant capital (corporations and the exceptionally wealthy) can require cruel standards of living for access to only a small part of the capital in society.

We saw our own country fight against this with the labor movements in the 20th century. Let’s be clear, the ending of child labor, the creation of the 40-hour workweek and overtime pay, and the establishment of rules for safe working conditions were all a government intrusion into the free exercise of the market. But they were intrusions that needed to happen because of the way unfettered capitalism was destroying the lives of working people.

The great early 20th-century bishop of Oxford, Charles Gore, said: “The State exists to enable its members to develop a worthy human life. A State must be judged, and should judge itself, by its tendency to generate in all its citizens a worthy type of life. … If at any state it finds that the institution of property, as it exists, is fostering luxury and exaggerated power in a few, and enslaving or hindering the many, there is nothing to prevent it rectifying what is amiss.”

I would argue that we confront exactly this sort of reality in 21st-century America. We have a booming economy and record-low unemployment, but the results of that economy are enjoyed primarily by the wealthy. Over the past 30 years, the bottom 90 percent of our population went from holding 33 percent of all wealth to just 24 percent. At the same time, the wealth share of the top 1 percent went from 30 percent to 40 percent. Unemployment is indeed low, but 80 percent of workers live paycheck to paycheck.

We can do better as a country. And Christians, following the teachings of Scripture and Jesus when it comes to caring for the poor, orphan and immigrant, must make their voice heard during this election year to demand our country do better. And rather than let people turn “socialism” into a dirty and scary word, we should ask what actions our State needs to take so that our social society is more just, equitable and fair.

Why I Moved from Mayor Pete to Senator Warren

With the loss of Mayor Buttigieg, I have been unsure of where to go in this race.

I've spent a lot of time thinking, reconsidering candidates I had given up on. After that consideration, I've decided that my support will go to Elizabeth Warren. Let me explain why.

Klobuchar is going nowhere in this race and I don't see a sudden surge moving her to a an actual majority of delegates. She is simply pulling delegates from others and needs to do hard thing that is best for the party (what Yang did and what Buttigieg rather bravely and selflessly  did before Super Tuesday) and end her campaign. (Same thing for Gabbard, I have no idea why she is still running). Michael Bloomberg also needs to get out of this race. He is helping no one—certainly not the Democratic party. Once these three remaining unserious candidates exit, we are left with three strong candidates (any of whom, to be clear, I would vote for if they are the nominee): Biden, Sanders, and Warren.

I admit that I still find Biden not to be a compelling candidate, unable or unwilling to think critically about the mis-steps of the Obama administration and focusing a campaign largely on Obama-era nostalgia and not upon new solutions for today's problems. He might wind up being the waiting stage between the Trump era and the future of the Democratic party, but I am uninspired by the prospect of his presidency (other than that he would be better than the current occupant of the office). Furthermore, as you will see below, I disagree with several of his policy positions. 

I agree ideologically with much of Sanders' platform—however, in politics I am more of a pragmatist than purist. I do not see a Sanders' candidacy resulting in the kind of massive changes needed in congress to enable an immediate move to Medicare for All. I think his presidency would only continue the current partisan fighting and would be unlikely to advance his policy aims (once more, many of which I agree with) in Washington.

Which leaves me with Elizabeth Warren—someone who I have long admired, beginning in her work in pushing for the creation of the Consumers Financial Protection Bureau. One the major issues, I agree with her:

• Abolish Capital Punishment
• Eliminate Private Prisons
• Bring back Glass-Steagall to regulate big banks (Biden voted to repeal it in 1999)
• Create broad paid family and medical leave plans for up to 12 weeks (no strong Biden Support)
• Make public colleges and universities tuition free (Biden only supports two years)
• Ban Fracking (Biden opposes)
• Institute universal background checks and a national firearms registry (Sanders only supports the registry for Assault weapons)
• Decriminalize illegal entry to the United States (Biden opposes)
• Federally legalize marijuana and scrap past convictions (Biden wants to leave with the individual states)
• Create an annual wealth tax on the super wealthy—you have your wealth because of our society, it's time to pay back into that society (Biden only supports a modest increase to the bracket)

As you may know, Sanders and Warren are aligned on many of the issues above. What sets them apart, I believe, is her policy and plan-oriented approach compared to his ideological indignation. To me, this makes her the better choice both for the moderate and the liberal Democrat. 

Healthcare is, to me, one of the most essential issues facing us as a country and Warren is the only candidate still standing with a compelling plan and approach. I support the end-game of universal healthcare coverage. Whereas Biden seems to want to leave us in ACA limbo.... But the ACA—though helpful and some areas—has been unable to deal with our systemic problems. It was a bandaid, not a solution. Sanders will never get an immediate movement to Medicare for all through Congress. Warren's plan might actually work. As a great Vox essay in support of her candidacy notes: 

She came out with a sequencing plan: First, she would pass a bill, using the 51-vote budget reconciliation process, to expand Medicare’s benefits and open the program to everyone over age 50; expand Medicaid eligibility; strengthen the Affordable Care Act; and create a public option with generous benefits, universal eligibility, automatic enrollment, and free coverage for anyone under the age of 18 or making less than 200 percent of the poverty line.

By the way, I'd encourage you to read the rest of that Vox essay above, if you haven't. It charts her path and, to be honest, only solidified my support for her candidacy. 

I'm well aware that she is pretty far behind in the Delegate count (8, compared to 53 for Biden and 60 for Sanders) and the polls (currently averaging 14% compared to 28.5% for Sanders and 20% for Biden). That said, I'm hopeful that with Buttigieg now out of the race, we will not see a swing of his support in the direction of Biden (despite claims that they are the moderates and so that would be natural, many of those I know who supported Buttigieg disagree with Biden on a host of issues). 

We'll see what happens tomorrow, but I'm hoping her campaign gets some momentum in Super Tuesday, the remaining unserious candidates drop out, and by the time the March 10 primary rolls around, we are choosing between the final three I outlined above. 

This election is about the soul and future of this country. No matter who you are leaning toward right now, continue to do your homework and think carefully. And please—please—show up and vote.