My basic reaction is that for a lot of society’s ills and ails, it is not the job of the government to handle them. Especially in this country where the first thing that was done was to set up a constitution that deliberately limited the powers of government. (I also believe that the federal government has assumed much more power than constitutionally authorized, basically since all three branches want to expand their powers.)

Aid to Africa? Better done through private means than public, especially if you’re worried about culture hegemony. Better yet, take away trade barriers (especially against agricultural imports), and then the money from increased trade will go to the country. (If it’s diverted within, it’s due to internal corruption at that point.) Now certainly the US has tarriffs and subsidies, but nowhere near the level that France does. (Not sure where the UK falls in that relation.)

War in the Middle East? The battles look existential enough (in the sense that one or more ideology is fighting for existance lest it be destroyed) that intercession looks to be pointless, and only intervention would leave lasting influence–again something to fear if you do not want undue American influence in the world.

And in many ways, what it sounds like to us that the rest of the world is saying is: The US is too strong; it needs to be weakened. I would advocate instead: The US is strong; we can help you get stronger.

So I didn’t want Senator Obama to win. Neither, really, did I want Senator McCain. There was no viable third option that I knew of, though I suppose I could have written former Senator Thompson in. But what are you supposed to do when the choice most people want will only suck the country further towards socialism?

Boaz, who is looking forward to the mid-term elections in 2010

Chris, by all means continue to write on such things. If Christians always heeded the call to “stay out of politics” we would never have had Wilberforce.

James

I need to request a retraction on my comment regarding the last paragraph if your post. I misinterpreted your meaning as “laughing critically at”, instead of “laughing with”, which is, I believe, what you intended.

My apologies.

Terry

Here (in Scotland) I’ve been following the elections for months, watching the BBC and reading articles in current affairs magazines, and I have no idea where Obama stands on “family issues”. It simply hasn’t been reported here. There may be other examples I’m not aware of.

Who was it who said Britain and America are “two countries separated by a common language”?

Thanks for these comments. They tell me that we are a) concerned about politics and b) different. I can live with both.

Terry. folks here were astonishingly pro-Obama. In part it was anti-Republican sentiment, in part it was that what he portrayed himself as resonated here and in part it was because we felt we had nothing to fear from him. (Readers please try and beware of nuances in the above statement: i.e. it is a report of what I perceive not necessarily what I believe). I will perhaps explore some of these aspects in later blogs. Some of you may not wish me to but it is often worth hearing what neighbours have to say even if you feel they are wrong.

My anecdote at the end may have been misinterpreted. My colleague is not in the slightest racist( she organizes aid to Africa with an extraordinary zeal)but she does skip the TV, newspapers and internet. (And may be better for it!). She was simply unaware of the matter of colour/race.
Blessings

Chris

Well, well… interesting what happens when one pokes the old proverbial anthill. Good discussion fodder, no doubt, but let’s make sure we’re using the practice swords and not the real thing, eh?

Chris, is the general feeling in the U.K. one of support for Obama? If so, why? Can you enlighten us? In our respective countries in N. America, (Canada for me), we have an idea of the public tone, but without research, the opinions of those in other countries may come as a surprise. There is here a general hesitance toward anyone who pounds the drum too loudly – we Canadians tend toward nonconformity – and some of BO’s platform themes scare us a bit.

I frequent a couple of American online forums, one being from Alaska, and after the election, alot of the boys went out and loaded up on automatic weopons. Just in case. Now, I recognize that this is likely one extreme of the spectrum, but there is by some reports even among hardcore Democrats a strong skepticism toward much of Obama’s juju.

I confess that BO’s position on family issues is a big rock for me as well. I’m not sure I can overlook something like that in deference to some of his more positive positions. Hopefully this election was not a case of choosing the lesser of two evils.

In Chris’ defense on the black/white thing, I think there were quotations around that phrase. Check the context.

The thing to keep central here is that “The King still reigns.” I think I read that somewhere. And who’s to say that this whole situation isn’t some kind of “testing of the Assembly?” Remember what happened to Peter when he looked at his surroundings instead of staying focused on Jesus. I think that’s really the challenge here. And maybe that’s our test.

In the King’s service,

Terry

Frenzied leader worship is a phrase that chills me too. Will not the anti-christ be a great orator, loved by many? I’m grossly oversimplifying, of course, because Obama has other qualities: you don’t get to edit the Harvard Law Review without them.

Finaly, I had to laugh at your final sentence, Chris. As Barack Obama is 50% white (his mother) and 50% black (his father), then saying “he is black” is (in that sense alone) about as accurate as saying “he is white”. I won’t say more, because this is yet another topic that provokes heated argument, other than to point out that (1) Obama himself is remarkably relaxed about the subject, as shown in his recent press conference and (2) I’m in a mixed marriage myself, so I have some personal experience of being on the receiving end of racism.

James

I am personally terrified by the empty hype of “Change” that got Obama elected. And to hear folks outside the US speak of the “Change” as welcome is offensive. What “Change”?

You say you are “personally anti-abortion, especially late stage.” What does that mean, “especially late stage”? Is it sort of OK early on? I don’t believe that’s what you meant, but it comes across as if you might think the US is not living up to its obligations to human life in the rest of the world to the extent that abortion should not be such an important issue in our presidential election as, say, aid to Africa.

Obama has issued a big giant empty promise of “Change” and can now fill it in with details however he sees fit. One of those details will very likely be liberal judicial appointments that will ensure continued abortions and will undermine family values and parental rights. Foundational freedoms and values are at stake.

I’m reminded of an occasion in the early 90′s when I offended a German by discussing the Berlin Wall as if I knew what I was talking about. It was his country and he had to live with the consequences, not me.