On Millard Fillmore and the Danger of Conflict Avoidance by Chris White

President and Patron Saint of Conflict Avoidance

“For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, contention quiets down.”  Proverbs 26:20

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Mt. 10:34

President Millard Fillmore (1850-53) was a master of conflict avoidance.  Even though he was a northerner and many of the politicians of the day were seeing that slavery was tearing the country apart, Fillmore did everything he could as president to protect slavery.  It wasn’t so much he favored America’s “peculiar institution” as he didn’t want the controversy that might come with making any hard decisions.  That avoidance of controversy may have served him well in the moment but just a few years later the entire nation was brought to the brink of catastrophe with the Civil War.  This incident reminds me of some advice I read in a marriage book years ago: avoiding conflict is a lot like lighting a trash can on fire and sticking in a closet.  The fire might go out for lack of oxygen, or it might burn the entire house down!  The great danger of avoiding conflict is that sometimes it works and then it becomes our solution of first resort.  There are plenty of times where avoiding conflict is the right thing to do.  In fact, we should try to be at peace with all men if at all possible.  I believe we should cut a large swath of grace for everyone around us that makes room for their differences, idiosyncrasies, and “bad hair days”.  That said, there are times when avoiding conflict is the absolute wrong thing to do.  One of those times is when a loved one (or fellow Christian) is being self-destructive or destructive to the unity of the Body.  For all the failings of Michael Jackson, I was quite impressed to read that his family loved him enough to confront him on his drug use on several occasions.  Surely they were stung by his death, but they aren’t bearing the extra pain of guilt for not doing the right thing.  Another time conflict shouldn’t be avoided is when a problem keeps recurring in a family, couple, or organization.  If something keeps coming up, it obviously needs resolution and reconciliation, not a blind eye.  It’s sort of like turning up your radio when your engine is making a funny sound.  Avoidance in that moment may cost you greatly later on.  Lastly, I think a Christian should enter conflict over false doctrine.  The NT tells us to earnestly contend for the faith at such times (Jude 3).  It is not okay to believe ideas that are in opposition to the Gospel.  Obviously this is true for everybody but especially so for Christians and must be confronted.  At all times confrontation should be done only after a rigorous self-examination of your thinking and motives (you may actually be seeing things wrong), in a spirit of gentleness (as our anger never accomplishes God’s work), and with much prayer and fasting (that God would do His work before the meeting).  May God grant us all great wisdom and generosity, but most of all charity in all these matters.

The Preacher and the Presidents: Billy Graham in the White House by Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy

Review by Chris White

Billy Graham has been in the media spotlight for nearly 60 years.  He has been honored by Presidents, Governors, Kings, Humanitarians, and Academics, and is for American evangelicals at least, something akin to a Protestant Pope.  So why another book about a man who has had a biography written about him every decade for the past 50 years?  The Preacher and the Presidents offers a different slant to the often told stories about the relationship Billy Graham has had with the last 11 commanders-in-chief.  Graham has told us his side of the story in several books, but this time the authors, both political writers for Time magazine, explore the story from the extant papers and letters and perspectives of the former presidents as well.  What emerges is not a different story, but one that is more lucid and shows Dr. Graham as having a very political side and many of our presidents as having a very spiritual side.  Notable examples of this would be JFK wanting to know more about the Second Coming of Christ and LBJ regularly attending Church services three times a day during his tenure.  It will probably not come as much a shock that Richard Nixon used Graham for political gain in nearly every one of his campaigns, but it is surprising how naïve and willingly complicit Graham was in supporting Nixon’s candidacy.  Readers will also be surprised about ‘off-the-radar’ political strategy sessions Graham had with Eisenhower and also how he was used by several presidents for back channel diplomatic missions.  What will come as no surprise is how Billy Graham evolved in his relationships with our past presidents, learning from his mistakes and missteps to be a listening, loving ear to these men of great power and crushing responsibility and wherever possible to help them to find hope in the gospel of Christ.

Review of Bill Clinton : My Life by Chris White

The only thing more baffling than people who write 1000 page autobiographies are the people who actually read them!  I voted for Bush I in ’92 and Bob “ED” Dole in ’96 but was still curious about the wild popularity of Bill Clinton and hoping to hear his side of the story of what happened during his presidency.  In my opinion, My Life is very illuminating when he describes his early years which included his father’s death before his birth, being raised by a young widow who left him with his grandparents while she attended nursing school, and then growing up with a step father whose alcoholism eventually broke up the family.  Having known other men who have grown up in similar family systems, they learn to observe, negotiate, and survive.  Unfortunately many who grow up in such homes have serious personal struggles we don’t always recognize, but in Bill Clinton’s life these skills were applied to the political life in such a way that the moniker “comeback kid” was quite apropos.   There are times when Clinton waxes eloquent about race relations and civil rights for blacks and how these things were part of what he was taught and personally believed as a child.  My untamed inner-cynic says this is true in much the same way a lot of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln stories are, but who knows?  Maybe he really was socially aware in the south of the 1950’s.  The run-down on his years as president are fairly engaging.  As an evangelical Christian I was often appalled at his social policies regarding abortion and homosexuals, but I also deeply appreciated others such as family leave to take care of sick parents or to welcome the birth of a child.  Clinton was also a strong promoter of religious liberty especially in the public schools which was virtually ignored by his detractors.  With regards to Clinton’s economic policies I had no problems.  He taxed more, but he cut our deficit down and compared to the idiotic mess we are in today, it sounds downright conservative to insist outgo be related to income in some way.  You’ll hear nothing of the lurid details about Monica Lewinsky.  Clinton assumes we either know the story all too well or wishes we wouldn’t.  You will hear about what happened at his house when he finally confessed to Hillary and Chelsea and the whole nation his misdeeds.  Ouch.  Can you say “Ice Box”?   To his credit, he makes no excuses for his behavior and did get marriage counseling and spiritual growth counseling from several well-known evangelical ministers.  He also has some strong opinions about the Al Gore-George Bush election showdown which are compelling in light of setting bad legal precedents for the future.  The other side of this is that Gore’s “victory” is at odds with reality.  Time Magazine and other media paid Florida for their own recount after the court intervention in 2000 and by every measurement, Bush won the popular vote.  While I do consider this book a very celebratory form of history, it did explain his side of policy that was frequently obscured by the many acrimonies that seem to freely float in Washington DC.  My Life states quite directly that Bill Clinton truly enjoyed being the president even with its hardships and that comes off as the most believable part of the book.

Some Thoughts on the Electoral College by Chris White

Every four years America elects it's president and every four years there is the same discussion around "the water cooler" at work: why do we have the electoral college and not just a simple majority vote?  A few smaller countries around the world actually do this and it does work.  Why a system that seems more complicated and to some even mysterious?  After researching the electoral college, I've come to the conclusion that it was one of the wiser ideas our founders came up with because it does a great job of ensuring that who achieves the presidency represents a broader coalition of people than just the people who live in our most populous states and urban areas.

First of all a little history.  Prior to 1828, it was the house of representatives that elected the president in most cases.  Some states did allow the people a direct vote of the electors, but most operated from the point of view that the house of representatives was the voice of the people and therefore the will of the people was represented in their election of the president.  America was also a bigger country in the early days than it is today.  There were no broadcast speeches or election returns, and some places were so remote that when the people voted on the first Tuesday of November (our constitutionally mandated election day) it would take a month for the result to make its way to Washington.  Also in the early days there were parties although different ones than we have now, the election field was far more open then than it is today.  If it were simply a majority vote in such a case, the person elected could potentially be unknown to most Americans (as he would not have to have a broad campaign) and certainly wouldn't be representative of the will of most people, just the razor thin margin he commanded.

Today, America does not have a national election but rather 50 state elections that occur simultaneously.  Except for a few states, there is a winner take all system meaning the majority winner takes all of the electoral votes.  The amount of votes a particular state has is directly related to its population (which also determines its number of representatives in congress).  With that in mind, there are 538 electoral votes up for grabs.  The magic number to win is 270 (1 more than half).  Obviously the winning strategy for any candidate is to get a majority in as many electoral vote rich states as possible.  But that is rarely possible and states have traditional voting patterns which we call blue (Democrat) and red (Republican) which make it an uphill climb for one of the two candidates.  But that is the beauty of the electoral system.  Victory in a combination of smaller states (electoral vote wise) can compensate for a loss in a state like California.  But it is also true that by winning the right combination of states one may win in the electoral college but not win the majority.  That has happened a few times in U.S. history most notably in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore Campaign.  Although the margins between the men in the popular vote were extremely slender it all came down to the electoral votes of Florida to settle the matter.  But that is the strategy side of the electoral college.

Functionally, Americans actually do not vote for president.  They vote for the electoral college members who vote in December and certify the will of the people.  Each party in each state selects members who will serve as the electors if their party wins.  Most states legally require the electors to vote for the winning candidate in that state's election, but a few states do not require it.  It has rarely happened but a few times in our history there have been electors who voted against the will of the people in their home states.  This is known as 'bad-faith voting'.  What has never happened yet in American history is for the winning candidate for president in November  to die before the electoral college voted the next month.  If that were to happen, the winning vice-presidential candidate would be the presumptive nominee, but since he or she is not elected yet, it could be possible for the electoral college to select another candidate or throw their votes to the losing candidate who is still living.

Related to this are the "what-if's".  For instance, what would happen if we went to a straight majority?  My guess is that unless you lived in a major urban center, you would never get to meet a presidential candidate in person.  There would be no motive for building a coalition.   What if we were to go back to having our representatives electing our president?  Well, it would mean the president would be the one who made the best back-room deals with congress.  Enough wheeling and dealing goes on in Washington DC already.  Critics of the electoral college system often note  that if you are not a swing-state (one that doesn't have a solid democratic or republican majority and therefore could go either way), you miss out on a lot of influence and election spoils (pork barrel spending to hold the winners influence in the next election).  In a way this is true but this is largely the fault of the voters.  After all, if voters would truly get informed about the issues and vote the candidate not the party-ticket consistently, virtually all 50 states would become swing-states.

Of course the most ridiculous part of our election cycle is the states with early primaries or caucuses.  These states  (with the exception of Michigan and S. Carolina) are insignificant in population wise  but are fawned-over by the candidates in hopes of early victories and the claim of great momentum as the 'people's choice'.  No doubt these states enjoy great favor and favors in between election cycles.  While the two-party system as it currently stands is not without great flaws, think of what a 3 or even 4 party system would provide us.  In that scenario, the winner would be clear, but would hardly represent a majority of the voting population.  Polarizing as just two parties are, with only two candidates, the winner of the office generally has the support of a majority of voters.

John Quincy Adams vs. Andrew Jackson was the first election resembling what those of us who are alive now experience.  These men took their case to the people stumping from town to town, exaggerating their patriotism and military records almost beyond credulity while simultaneously calling into question the virtue of their opponents mother and the circumstances under which conception took place.  Hands would be shaken and babies kissed, slogans would be spread with songs and signs and promises would be made that if elected, America would finally be back on track for being the greatest country the world has ever seen.  In other words, what we see today has been going on for a long time only without television coverage.

When the people first started voting there were also laws in some states that limited the vote to land-holding white men alone.  They represented their families, employees, renters, and chattel slaves.  As democracy has deepened in our country the vote has expanded to virtually every citizen who has reached age 18.  Chicago, the most democratic of all American cities, is even more expansive in voting rights in counting the votes of people who have been dead and buried for years (the dead need to have a voice too!) and of course allowing multiple votes as well ("vote early and vote often!" as the late Mayor Daley is supposed to have said).  Our system may be a bit complex and even clunky in some places, but for the most part it continues to sustain one of Western Civilizations cherished ideals: that those who govern, do so with the consent of the governed.