That’s true. You’re absolutely right.

I’ve used much the same argument in the past to deride state lotteries that help to finance school systems. The net money to schools doesn’t increase, governments just get more money to play with their pet projects.

B’shalom,

Jeff

I don’t like interference of this sort. I don’t give a rat’s patoot about what religion, to each your own, but that should be the deal – your own.

Fortunately, I was able to read the unapproved comments via email I have to say that you and Joe really, really need to work on your troll bait.

Speaking as a non-Hispanic born Catholic, non-Black, raised Congregationalist Christian, White American male Jew by Choice who volunteered to serve his country proudly for 11 years and received the Navy Expeditionary medal in 1979 for duty in Gulf War Part I: the Iranian phase (and how many years of service have either you or Joe given your country in return for the myriad of benefits it has bestowed on you?) I suggest you better know the people you childishly mock.

B’shalom,

Jeff

Jeff, go hang out with all the Nader supporting idiots. I’m sure there’s a big contingent nearby who also support boy wonder Kookinich. Or why don’t you try to breathe life back into the Ohio Green Party which is lucky if it gets 2 percent of the vote at any given time.

Now that I know all this, I’ll be sure to avoid reading most of Jeff Hess’s political commentary on his coffee induced writing blog. Of course, I rarely read it now, but I’ll read it even less in the future.

B’Shillom
Phil

I’m not saying it’s good or bad (“acceptable and understandable” or not), just that it’s been part of the Obama package all along. I don’t think he’s ever been shy about the historical connection between his organizing experience and his “coming to Jesus”. For example, this speech has been linked on his website (under Issues/Faith) for a long time.

What’s my “experience in observing the principles being applied to the opportunities in a way that is separate from the faith?” Um… I don’t think you’re asking for my professional critique of Gamaliel’s organizing approach compared to other trainers and consultants. But if you mean “applying community empowerment organizing principles to political leadership, only without the religious baggage”, I’d say there’s little if any experience to observe.

How would you “apply and use” the principle of empowering low income communities by developing a capacity for collective action based on shared values and vision “in a secular way”? Where will you find an existing organizational setting for that process in most communities, if not in churches? The only alternative is usually to construct organizational settings from scratch, which is a whole lot harder than it sounds.

There are community organizing models that try to create such settings in non-religious ways — ACORN, for one good example. In many communities that’s all they can do, because religious institutions aren’t that strong or aren’t interested. But I don’t know any experienced community organizer, from any network or tradition — no matter how secular personally — who fails to welcome church engagement and leadership where it can be found.

But here’s something else all good organizers understand — Alinsky Organizing Principle #1: Both individuals and institutions are motivated to participate in collective action by self-interest. For churches to put their relationships and credibility at the service of a larger community agenda — either for a Gamaliel organizer or a government social service program — they, like you or me, need to get something important in return. Recognition. Or a place at the political table. Or new members. Or money. Something their boards will see as advancing real institutional self-interests.

So the logic goes: a) churches are generally desirable if not essential partners for bottom-up empowerment approaches to low-income community change; and b) there has to be something in it for the churches as churches to join such a partnership.

Not unlike businesses, or unions… or some bloggers we know.

I think we’ll find that Obama’s version of faith-based programs will involve different churches, different kinds of “values and vision”, and a different set of institutional self-interests than Bush’s. It’s likely to be more about helping poor people to be empowered players rather than grateful charity clients. But it won’t be any less about “faith”… or about getting those poor people into somebody’s pews.

Democrats who are uncomfortable with that approach need to ask ourselves: What are we doing to make any other approach possible?