| MARY ANNE ''MOLLY'' PHELAN | 4,422 | 44.56 % |
| JAMES CAPPLEMAN | 5,502 | 55.44 % |
James Cappleman is the new Alderman of the 46th Ward. Period.
Showing posts with label ward 46. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ward 46. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
The Results are IN: James Cappleman Elected Alderman with Heavy Majority
Bluechristian was for Molly. Well too bad, Trott! Eat it and like it! With 100% of precincts reporting, the results say it:
James Cappleman is the new Alderman of the 46th Ward. Period.
James Cappleman is the new Alderman of the 46th Ward. Period.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The Chicago Reader on Helen Shiller
Sorry, if all politics is local, I sure make sure my readers keep up with Uptown, Chicago's. After responding to Helen Shiller's March 2007 aldermanic opponent (James Cappleman) just yesterday, I today ran across in the pile of trash on my desk the March 30 Chicago Reader. An article there, "Helen's Voters: Democracy at work in the 46th Ward," pretty much said what I tried to say in my response to Mr. Cappleman regarding his loss to Helen in the election. There is a predictable (if painful) history here of a class struggle:
At the risk of generating dozens of screechy e-mails, I think it all comes down to good old-fashioned class warfare. Shiller’s made it clear there will always be a place for the poor in Uptown and some people can’t abide that. She says her cause is justice; her foes say she keeps the poor in Uptown so she can control their votes. “Shiller’s main motive was that she was building a political power base which included as many winos as she could drag to the voting booth,” columnist Mike Royko once wrote.
Funny, but not really fair: in a city notorious for its corruption, neither Shiller nor anyone in her organization has ever been indicted, much less convicted, for the sort of illegal electioneering alluded to by Royko. She’s not a lawyer; she doesn’t run an insurance or real estate business on the side. Clearly she’s not in politics to make money, although it looks as though her son, Brendan Shiller, is carrying on that great Chicago tradition in which the relatives of powerful politicians become zoning lawyers.
Some of the animosity against her is a remnant of the culture wars of the 1960s and 1970s. Born and raised in New York City and educated at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Shiller came to Uptown in the early 70s as part of a vanguard of shaggy-haired radicals looking to change the world. Within a few years she and her comrades had created the Heart of Uptown Coalition, which oversaw health and legal clinics, distributed clothes and meals to the poor, and freaked out older white residents by aligning itself with the Black Panthers. In 1977 the group officially moved into local politics by running Shiller for alderman. In those days the ward was controlled by hard-nosed Democratic operatives who’d started in politics under the first Mayor Daley and were not about to let this crowd take over without a fight. She lost by 1,000 votes.
I’ve witnessed eight 46th Ward aldermanic campaigns since then, and though Shiller has won every one since 1987, when she ousted incumbent Jerry Orbach by 498 votes, they’ve all been pretty much the same.
Monday, April 23, 2007
An after-election response to me from former aldermanic candidate James Cappleman, and my response back
I was surprised, though not unpleasantly, when former political candidate James Cappleman posted a comment last week to one of a handful of posts I did on the 46th Aldermanic elections here in Chicago. His post in turn led to me writing one of my interminably long responses, long enough that I'm posting it as a front pager instead of a comment. Background: Mr. Cappleman challenged incumbent Helen Shiller in the March elections, and lost. As the election progressed I, as someone who finds in Alderman Shiller the rarest of commodities (a politician with integrity), did give her challenger and supporters a fairly hard time. The election, for the majority of those voting for both candidates, had as subtext the class struggle between more wealthy, invested interests vs. those struggling to make ends meet.
Again, here is what James wrote (along with the contested article itself as well as about 20 other comments). My response to his comments follows:
James, I am glad to see you responding to my post here, but sad you couldn’t have responded during the election. Nonetheless, thanks again for posting. Allow me to initially respond to your concerns. After I do that, I’ll try to add some comments reflecting more on what lies ahead for our 46thWard, and Uptown in particular, than focusing on the election now behind us.
I honestly don’t think we’ll get anywhere meaningful by debating as if the election is still underway. Nor, probably, will we get anywhere debating my opinion about your platform and presentation vs. yours. You write that I accused you of being a “fan” of George Bush. I did not. I did suggest that your presentation on PBS Channel 11 as well as your comments in the debate with Helen Shiller at Uptown’s Disney Magnet School offered a rhetorically heavy and content-light approach quite similar to President Bush’s.
What was offered instead seemed to be mostly an assault on Ms. Shiller rooted in character assassination, coupled with your own insistence that, unlike her, you would be a good alderman.
This failed to impress me. Again, that was my take, and I’m the first to admit my perspective is only that of one very limited human being. But can we move on to greener pastures? You list five points, which I will attempt to respond to in what will probably be too long for many and not long (explanatory enough) for others:
First you say: "I am a liberal Democrat." Perhaps you are on many issues. But somehow, on the set of issues consistently facing Uptown (and I’m talking as someone who’s lived here for the past 30 years) you have drawn around you a group of very conservative-leaning (one might even say reactionary) folks on key issues for our community. If a politician’s appeal can be known through his followers, then I would have to say you don’t appear at all progressive on the interlinked issues of homeless, housing, and poverty. Nor did I personally detect anything progressive in your platform on these subjects. You signaled you'd worked with the homeless, which I applaud. But you also seemed highly resistant to more low-income and affordable housing being built in Uptown, a fact reflected by your hostility toward the Wilson Yards low-income housing component engineered by Helen Shiller.
What I suggest, if you want the votes of progressives in the Ward (should Helen not run again), is to interview folks ward-wide about the history of what many call -- fairly accurately -- a “class war” in our Uptown. A growing number of folks would love to see this class war resolved, but I don’t think anyone will respond to rhetoric alone. You would need a platform filled with very specific, well-informed, and worked out plans to actually CREATE low income housing, more jobs for the very poor, and more help in particular for homeless men, who appear very unwelcome in the “new” Uptown some of your supporters would seemingly like to build.
Second, you say: “I have always remained a strong advocate for people who live in poverty.”James, this just doesn’t ring true. Perhaps you believe it; that’s not the question. All I can do is point to those who voted for you in this last election.
Why did the same interests gather around you as gathered around every challenger of Helen Shiller for the past twenty years? Those interests have always focused on stopping any further low-income housing in Uptown, and where possible, eliminating some or all social services in Uptown for the poor. For us long-time watchers, nothing has changed. This seems true also of your supporters, many of whom repeated the exact same anti-poor rhetoric we’ve been hearing since 1985 or ’86.
If, once again, you want the votes of a majority of progressives, you have to fight consistently for the poor, for more low-income housing, rather than against it on the very dubious grounds that it doesn’t meet HUD’s guidelines. The trouble with such narrowly defined “proper ways” of doing things creates a probable death of a thousand pin-pricks for any truly creative plans for low-income housing.
You go get HUD dollars if you think you want HUD housing. Otherwise, that housing has to be created via other plans and other specifications. Helen Shiller did go get housing dollars via one of the most innovative plans we’ve seen in this or any Chicago ward in recent memory. The Wilson Yard TIF plan created something for everyone, including the large retail outlet we’ll all use, but also created low income housing. If you wanted to appear sincere in your claims above, you would have supported this plan unreservedly. Frankly, for my own two cents, I had hoped for more affordable housing out of it than we actually got. But I do think Helen did about as well as she could considering the lack of HUD or any other government funding for housing. (Guess it is all being spent in Iraqthese days. If you don’t believe me about HUD, take a look at post-Katrina New Orleans, where up to 60 percent of their housing other than downtown is still vacant due to flood damage!)
Third, you say “I have always sought efforts to eliminate racism, homophobia, classism, ageism, and sexism. That comes with being a liberal Democrat. That comes from being a Christian with strong humanist leanings.” These are good words, Mr. Cappleman. But in order to actually deal with such issues you have to become engaged with the history of these matters. Uptown’s history is particularly painful, as there has been an unrelenting class struggle here for at least four decades (and actually since the 1930s). At first Uptown was indeed the North Side’s main “ghetto” area, a place where poor southern whites, blacks, and various other racial and ethnic groups could find low-income (but also horrendously dangerous and unhealthy) housing.
Then, as speculators realized Uptown was located near Lake Michigan and had easy access to public transportation (among other things), the area became victimto selfish developers. We watched as mass evictions of (for instance) Cambodianrefugees took place via a developer who bought their building in order to turnit into high-rent apartments. The condo boom made things even worse. (I’m greatlycompacting a story which is fairly horrendous.)
So… your words are good. I applaud them. But I’d need specific plans for the future where such noble sentiments are fleshed out in hard, cash-savvy, people-savvy terms. Otherwise, you and your supporters remain vulnerable to charges of NIMBYism** regarding the poorest of the poor who are your neighbors.
Fourth, you say “I abhor the polarization that exists in Uptown. At the WTTW interview, I brought up the What the Helen* blog to demonstrate that there are deep divisions within this ward in order to confront Ald. Shiller's attempts to gloss over the anger that is present in the community.”
Sigh. Again, you must honestly believe this. But I just don’t see it. In fact, by far the most divisive campaign I saw was your own. Part of that is just good politics, in the pragmatic sense at least. That is, you were the underdog to an established favorite. Discontent is a political necessity for an underdog, otherwise the underdog will be basically unelectable. So I don’t even particularly hold it against you that you used division in order to try to build and strengthen your beachhead of voters. Where you ran into trouble, however, was in what kind of voters – and how incredibly shrill and hateful – the most public voices among them ended up being. The whatthehelen folks, as your very worst expression of support, should NEVER have been mentioned by you even strategically. That is, unless you thought their site would be helpful to your cause. I assure you it was not.
You make the same mistake in your post here to bluechristian.com you made on the WTTW broadcast. That is, you blame Helen Shiller for the rantings of extremists, while (it could be argued) you yourself are fueling the extremists' rage. And the “blame game,” even in good ol’ Bushite America, is beginning to wear thin. Extremists are extremists, angry people are often simply angry people, and will find some target to vent at.
Most of my post, actually, was directed more at the whatthehelen dot com folks than at you. But your verbal endorsement of them – because that is what it was for the viewers, whether you meant it that way or not – does implicate you. Never did you distance yourself from either them or even the more extreme voices on sites such as buenaparkneighbors.org (a site where moderate, thoughtful voices do also post). The deeply offensive comments made their about Helen, about the religious community I am a part of, and about others, were passed on by you in silence.
In retrospect, and for the future, I think if you really mean it when you say “I abhor… polarization,” you should promptly and publically reject hateful and knowingly inaccurate websites supporting your cause as being divisive. Not only would that show integrity, but it would also quite possibly lose you a few votes and gain you some votes.
Fifth, you write what appears to be a reiteration of your campaign rhetoric. In fact, I think some of that sounds like the very wording you used at the Disney school debate and on WTTW. I’m not going to respond point by point (collective sigh of relief from readers here—Trott’s already windy enough!). The election is over, and if anything perhaps I can aid you (to one degree or another) in finding lessons in the whole process. Or perhaps I won't be of use to you in that regard. If so, I'm sorry. I do realize that you are at least pondering another aldermanic run in a few years, so polishing one's rhetoric is no less important for you, a political hopeful, than it is for me, a writer.
Speaking of my writing, you said this: “Jon, there's a spirit of meanness that pervades your writing. You might see as sarcasm and dismiss the seriousness of it, but it's there. You would benefit from searching your own conscience. In the meantime, I will not sink to your level. We don't agree with one another on politics. I don't and never will agree that the end justifies the means. I also embrace a spirituality that sees an element of God's truth in all religions, including yours. I expect you to be truthful. I would think your God expects the same.”
James, when it comes to me and my motives, my voice as “sarcastic,” and many more matters of personal ambiguity, I always plead guilty. Only God knows my heart for sure; I don’t. But as for “meanness,” I don’t think I ever called you anything like your followers have called me and/or the religious community to whom I belong. Re-read what I wrote, or peruse some of the threads on Buena Park Neighbors' message board regarding us, Helen, or other supporters / employees of Helen.
The business about Denice, who works with Helen, was very Imus-ish in my opinion and the opinions of others who read it (again, I referenced it in my post to which you responded). All of that was nasty character assassination, without basis in fact. And I did hear you directly attack the integrity of Helen Shiller as a person, not merely a politician. That line is a fine one, I understand. But in my humble opinion, you crossed it early and often during the campaign.
And re sarcasm, I don’t think my comparison between you and President Bush was meant to be mean. It was meant quite literally. I did feel somewhat angry as I wrote it. If you felt that sense of indignation from me, I plead (again) guilty. Again, I would absolutely love it if you proved me wrong by your future actions. I mean that in 100% sincerety. You will find in me a solid ally if you in turn ally yourself – in action – with the poorest of the poor. You were a Franciscan once, so I know you are familiar with his way of life and not just his words. And I don’t doubt that in your personal life, you attempt to do many good, gracious, and noble things that might reflect his spirit as well as the Spirit of his Master.
But politically and socially, you ended up supporting ideas that I don’t think St. Francis would have supported. And lest we forget, N. T. Wright (a great Anglican theologian) reminds us that Jesus Christ wasn't just a feel-good guru. No one would have killed him for that. Jesus’gospel was (and is) political at its heart, and Christ died for political reasons at the hands of both religious and secular authorities. How have we ended up, as Christians, supporting the powers-that-be over against the poor and dispossessed? None of us are innocent, James. I do indeed, as you suggest, try to plumb my own conscience before the God of Love and Justice.
A few philosophical threads to tie off, and I’m done. Not because I really have given an adequate response – even though it is as long as a Helen Shiller response (joke!) – but because I think these issues are the hear of what makes us human, or our political end results humane or non-humane…
You mention the end justifying the means and seemingly direct that comment toward me. Without a referent to something I said or wrote, I'm baffled by it. It was a strange sentiment, seemingly reflecting the very thing you are accusing me of doing.
You write: “I also embrace a spirituality that sees an element of God’s truth in all religions, including yours.” Um, my religion is Christianity. If yours is also Christianity – defined normally by one’s belief in the historic life, death, and resurrection of Christ as portrayed in the gospels, and its personal application to us individually and corporately as human beings, then you and I are both of the same faith. We may (and likely do) disagree on other issues, sub-sets if you will of the gospel’s core, but that doesn’t necessarily make either of us an unbeliever. As the Apostle James said, in words that burn whenever I ponder them, "faith without works is dead."
But back to the "elements of truth in all religions" sentence of yours. There is a very superficial way this expression can be read -- as a sort of fluffy Hallmark card sentimentalist sound-bite. Scrape at it with a fingernail and the meaning vanishes away, leaving only a thin sugary crust.
But on a deeper level I agree, depending on what we mean by “elements,” I suppose. Every religion that exists points to the yearning in each individual heart for meaning, for hope beyond death, for love (both as lover and for a Beloved). All the great religions have at their heart an idea of mutuality, or as Martin Buber calls it, an “I – Thou” relationship between human beings as well as between human beings and God.
And all great monotheistic religions have at their heart the idea that God, at heart, cares for us and is concerned for us each personally, that he reveals himself to us through general and specific revelation. C. S. Lewis deals with some of this on the popular level with his Mere Christianity.
The problem with that sentiment, however, is when it is taken too far. For instance, neither you nor I would agree with much that many religions have to offer. The law of non-contradiction indicates that if I say God is a Sentient, Personal, Perfect Being, and that what he created materially is “good,” I cannot also believe that God is an impersonal “it,” or “stuff” that creation is made of, and that creation in its material form is actually an imperfection or even evil. These two ideas, from western monotheistic and eastern Hindu-based religious traditions respectively, come into logical conflict. They may both be wrong, but they can’t both be right.
There are a number of other core issues of faith which likewise demand intellectually that we choose between them. That does not, however, necessitate a dehumanization of others who do not see reality as we do. All human beings -- not just Christians -- are made in the Image of God. Christ died not for some, but for all men. The fact some humans reject that sacrifice is one of those terrible mysteries I don't pretend to understand.
Finally, you say "I won't sink to your level." Well, knowing me as well as I do, I’m glad for you! All of us are pretty low on the morality scale. God didn’t really become human to make us into good moral, decent citizens. Most of us already think we are good people, not really in desperate and needy straights. He came to rescue those of us realizing our predicament, and to make us into His disciples. The very first step of that process is to discover that we are sinful, selfish, lustful, and unloving, even in the midst of our most altruistic, "good" by human standards acts and words.
In short, any politician really wanting to be a "good" politician must begin with the self-project, what AA calls a "fearless self-inventory."
Redemption of a world begins with the smallest world, my own.
Or, as St. Francis put it, “Above all the grace and the gifts that Christ gives to his beloved is that of overcoming self.”
So, as one sinner to another, can we get started?
Blessings,
Jon Trott
* The "whatthehelen" blog site was pulled down within hours of the election ending. Another site has since taken the URL, but is missing most of the content the first site had.
** NIMBY = "Not In My Own Backyard" and refers to political liberals who suddenly become conservative when faced with the implications of progressive liberalism in their own neighborhoods.
Again, here is what James wrote (along with the contested article itself as well as about 20 other comments). My response to his comments follows:
== + ==
James, I am glad to see you responding to my post here, but sad you couldn’t have responded during the election. Nonetheless, thanks again for posting. Allow me to initially respond to your concerns. After I do that, I’ll try to add some comments reflecting more on what lies ahead for our 46thWard, and Uptown in particular, than focusing on the election now behind us.
I honestly don’t think we’ll get anywhere meaningful by debating as if the election is still underway. Nor, probably, will we get anywhere debating my opinion about your platform and presentation vs. yours. You write that I accused you of being a “fan” of George Bush. I did not. I did suggest that your presentation on PBS Channel 11 as well as your comments in the debate with Helen Shiller at Uptown’s Disney Magnet School offered a rhetorically heavy and content-light approach quite similar to President Bush’s.
What was offered instead seemed to be mostly an assault on Ms. Shiller rooted in character assassination, coupled with your own insistence that, unlike her, you would be a good alderman.
This failed to impress me. Again, that was my take, and I’m the first to admit my perspective is only that of one very limited human being. But can we move on to greener pastures? You list five points, which I will attempt to respond to in what will probably be too long for many and not long (explanatory enough) for others:
First you say: "I am a liberal Democrat." Perhaps you are on many issues. But somehow, on the set of issues consistently facing Uptown (and I’m talking as someone who’s lived here for the past 30 years) you have drawn around you a group of very conservative-leaning (one might even say reactionary) folks on key issues for our community. If a politician’s appeal can be known through his followers, then I would have to say you don’t appear at all progressive on the interlinked issues of homeless, housing, and poverty. Nor did I personally detect anything progressive in your platform on these subjects. You signaled you'd worked with the homeless, which I applaud. But you also seemed highly resistant to more low-income and affordable housing being built in Uptown, a fact reflected by your hostility toward the Wilson Yards low-income housing component engineered by Helen Shiller.
What I suggest, if you want the votes of progressives in the Ward (should Helen not run again), is to interview folks ward-wide about the history of what many call -- fairly accurately -- a “class war” in our Uptown. A growing number of folks would love to see this class war resolved, but I don’t think anyone will respond to rhetoric alone. You would need a platform filled with very specific, well-informed, and worked out plans to actually CREATE low income housing, more jobs for the very poor, and more help in particular for homeless men, who appear very unwelcome in the “new” Uptown some of your supporters would seemingly like to build.
Second, you say: “I have always remained a strong advocate for people who live in poverty.”James, this just doesn’t ring true. Perhaps you believe it; that’s not the question. All I can do is point to those who voted for you in this last election.
Why did the same interests gather around you as gathered around every challenger of Helen Shiller for the past twenty years? Those interests have always focused on stopping any further low-income housing in Uptown, and where possible, eliminating some or all social services in Uptown for the poor. For us long-time watchers, nothing has changed. This seems true also of your supporters, many of whom repeated the exact same anti-poor rhetoric we’ve been hearing since 1985 or ’86.
If, once again, you want the votes of a majority of progressives, you have to fight consistently for the poor, for more low-income housing, rather than against it on the very dubious grounds that it doesn’t meet HUD’s guidelines. The trouble with such narrowly defined “proper ways” of doing things creates a probable death of a thousand pin-pricks for any truly creative plans for low-income housing.
You go get HUD dollars if you think you want HUD housing. Otherwise, that housing has to be created via other plans and other specifications. Helen Shiller did go get housing dollars via one of the most innovative plans we’ve seen in this or any Chicago ward in recent memory. The Wilson Yard TIF plan created something for everyone, including the large retail outlet we’ll all use, but also created low income housing. If you wanted to appear sincere in your claims above, you would have supported this plan unreservedly. Frankly, for my own two cents, I had hoped for more affordable housing out of it than we actually got. But I do think Helen did about as well as she could considering the lack of HUD or any other government funding for housing. (Guess it is all being spent in Iraqthese days. If you don’t believe me about HUD, take a look at post-Katrina New Orleans, where up to 60 percent of their housing other than downtown is still vacant due to flood damage!)
Third, you say “I have always sought efforts to eliminate racism, homophobia, classism, ageism, and sexism. That comes with being a liberal Democrat. That comes from being a Christian with strong humanist leanings.” These are good words, Mr. Cappleman. But in order to actually deal with such issues you have to become engaged with the history of these matters. Uptown’s history is particularly painful, as there has been an unrelenting class struggle here for at least four decades (and actually since the 1930s). At first Uptown was indeed the North Side’s main “ghetto” area, a place where poor southern whites, blacks, and various other racial and ethnic groups could find low-income (but also horrendously dangerous and unhealthy) housing.
Then, as speculators realized Uptown was located near Lake Michigan and had easy access to public transportation (among other things), the area became victimto selfish developers. We watched as mass evictions of (for instance) Cambodianrefugees took place via a developer who bought their building in order to turnit into high-rent apartments. The condo boom made things even worse. (I’m greatlycompacting a story which is fairly horrendous.)
So… your words are good. I applaud them. But I’d need specific plans for the future where such noble sentiments are fleshed out in hard, cash-savvy, people-savvy terms. Otherwise, you and your supporters remain vulnerable to charges of NIMBYism** regarding the poorest of the poor who are your neighbors.
Fourth, you say “I abhor the polarization that exists in Uptown. At the WTTW interview, I brought up the What the Helen* blog to demonstrate that there are deep divisions within this ward in order to confront Ald. Shiller's attempts to gloss over the anger that is present in the community.”
Sigh. Again, you must honestly believe this. But I just don’t see it. In fact, by far the most divisive campaign I saw was your own. Part of that is just good politics, in the pragmatic sense at least. That is, you were the underdog to an established favorite. Discontent is a political necessity for an underdog, otherwise the underdog will be basically unelectable. So I don’t even particularly hold it against you that you used division in order to try to build and strengthen your beachhead of voters. Where you ran into trouble, however, was in what kind of voters – and how incredibly shrill and hateful – the most public voices among them ended up being. The whatthehelen folks, as your very worst expression of support, should NEVER have been mentioned by you even strategically. That is, unless you thought their site would be helpful to your cause. I assure you it was not.
You make the same mistake in your post here to bluechristian.com you made on the WTTW broadcast. That is, you blame Helen Shiller for the rantings of extremists, while (it could be argued) you yourself are fueling the extremists' rage. And the “blame game,” even in good ol’ Bushite America, is beginning to wear thin. Extremists are extremists, angry people are often simply angry people, and will find some target to vent at.
Most of my post, actually, was directed more at the whatthehelen dot com folks than at you. But your verbal endorsement of them – because that is what it was for the viewers, whether you meant it that way or not – does implicate you. Never did you distance yourself from either them or even the more extreme voices on sites such as buenaparkneighbors.org (a site where moderate, thoughtful voices do also post). The deeply offensive comments made their about Helen, about the religious community I am a part of, and about others, were passed on by you in silence.
In retrospect, and for the future, I think if you really mean it when you say “I abhor… polarization,” you should promptly and publically reject hateful and knowingly inaccurate websites supporting your cause as being divisive. Not only would that show integrity, but it would also quite possibly lose you a few votes and gain you some votes.
Fifth, you write what appears to be a reiteration of your campaign rhetoric. In fact, I think some of that sounds like the very wording you used at the Disney school debate and on WTTW. I’m not going to respond point by point (collective sigh of relief from readers here—Trott’s already windy enough!). The election is over, and if anything perhaps I can aid you (to one degree or another) in finding lessons in the whole process. Or perhaps I won't be of use to you in that regard. If so, I'm sorry. I do realize that you are at least pondering another aldermanic run in a few years, so polishing one's rhetoric is no less important for you, a political hopeful, than it is for me, a writer.
Speaking of my writing, you said this: “Jon, there's a spirit of meanness that pervades your writing. You might see as sarcasm and dismiss the seriousness of it, but it's there. You would benefit from searching your own conscience. In the meantime, I will not sink to your level. We don't agree with one another on politics. I don't and never will agree that the end justifies the means. I also embrace a spirituality that sees an element of God's truth in all religions, including yours. I expect you to be truthful. I would think your God expects the same.”
James, when it comes to me and my motives, my voice as “sarcastic,” and many more matters of personal ambiguity, I always plead guilty. Only God knows my heart for sure; I don’t. But as for “meanness,” I don’t think I ever called you anything like your followers have called me and/or the religious community to whom I belong. Re-read what I wrote, or peruse some of the threads on Buena Park Neighbors' message board regarding us, Helen, or other supporters / employees of Helen.
The business about Denice, who works with Helen, was very Imus-ish in my opinion and the opinions of others who read it (again, I referenced it in my post to which you responded). All of that was nasty character assassination, without basis in fact. And I did hear you directly attack the integrity of Helen Shiller as a person, not merely a politician. That line is a fine one, I understand. But in my humble opinion, you crossed it early and often during the campaign.
And re sarcasm, I don’t think my comparison between you and President Bush was meant to be mean. It was meant quite literally. I did feel somewhat angry as I wrote it. If you felt that sense of indignation from me, I plead (again) guilty. Again, I would absolutely love it if you proved me wrong by your future actions. I mean that in 100% sincerety. You will find in me a solid ally if you in turn ally yourself – in action – with the poorest of the poor. You were a Franciscan once, so I know you are familiar with his way of life and not just his words. And I don’t doubt that in your personal life, you attempt to do many good, gracious, and noble things that might reflect his spirit as well as the Spirit of his Master.
But politically and socially, you ended up supporting ideas that I don’t think St. Francis would have supported. And lest we forget, N. T. Wright (a great Anglican theologian) reminds us that Jesus Christ wasn't just a feel-good guru. No one would have killed him for that. Jesus’gospel was (and is) political at its heart, and Christ died for political reasons at the hands of both religious and secular authorities. How have we ended up, as Christians, supporting the powers-that-be over against the poor and dispossessed? None of us are innocent, James. I do indeed, as you suggest, try to plumb my own conscience before the God of Love and Justice.
A few philosophical threads to tie off, and I’m done. Not because I really have given an adequate response – even though it is as long as a Helen Shiller response (joke!) – but because I think these issues are the hear of what makes us human, or our political end results humane or non-humane…
You mention the end justifying the means and seemingly direct that comment toward me. Without a referent to something I said or wrote, I'm baffled by it. It was a strange sentiment, seemingly reflecting the very thing you are accusing me of doing.
You write: “I also embrace a spirituality that sees an element of God’s truth in all religions, including yours.” Um, my religion is Christianity. If yours is also Christianity – defined normally by one’s belief in the historic life, death, and resurrection of Christ as portrayed in the gospels, and its personal application to us individually and corporately as human beings, then you and I are both of the same faith. We may (and likely do) disagree on other issues, sub-sets if you will of the gospel’s core, but that doesn’t necessarily make either of us an unbeliever. As the Apostle James said, in words that burn whenever I ponder them, "faith without works is dead."
But back to the "elements of truth in all religions" sentence of yours. There is a very superficial way this expression can be read -- as a sort of fluffy Hallmark card sentimentalist sound-bite. Scrape at it with a fingernail and the meaning vanishes away, leaving only a thin sugary crust.
But on a deeper level I agree, depending on what we mean by “elements,” I suppose. Every religion that exists points to the yearning in each individual heart for meaning, for hope beyond death, for love (both as lover and for a Beloved). All the great religions have at their heart an idea of mutuality, or as Martin Buber calls it, an “I – Thou” relationship between human beings as well as between human beings and God.
And all great monotheistic religions have at their heart the idea that God, at heart, cares for us and is concerned for us each personally, that he reveals himself to us through general and specific revelation. C. S. Lewis deals with some of this on the popular level with his Mere Christianity.
The problem with that sentiment, however, is when it is taken too far. For instance, neither you nor I would agree with much that many religions have to offer. The law of non-contradiction indicates that if I say God is a Sentient, Personal, Perfect Being, and that what he created materially is “good,” I cannot also believe that God is an impersonal “it,” or “stuff” that creation is made of, and that creation in its material form is actually an imperfection or even evil. These two ideas, from western monotheistic and eastern Hindu-based religious traditions respectively, come into logical conflict. They may both be wrong, but they can’t both be right.
There are a number of other core issues of faith which likewise demand intellectually that we choose between them. That does not, however, necessitate a dehumanization of others who do not see reality as we do. All human beings -- not just Christians -- are made in the Image of God. Christ died not for some, but for all men. The fact some humans reject that sacrifice is one of those terrible mysteries I don't pretend to understand.
Finally, you say "I won't sink to your level." Well, knowing me as well as I do, I’m glad for you! All of us are pretty low on the morality scale. God didn’t really become human to make us into good moral, decent citizens. Most of us already think we are good people, not really in desperate and needy straights. He came to rescue those of us realizing our predicament, and to make us into His disciples. The very first step of that process is to discover that we are sinful, selfish, lustful, and unloving, even in the midst of our most altruistic, "good" by human standards acts and words.
In short, any politician really wanting to be a "good" politician must begin with the self-project, what AA calls a "fearless self-inventory."
Redemption of a world begins with the smallest world, my own.
Or, as St. Francis put it, “Above all the grace and the gifts that Christ gives to his beloved is that of overcoming self.”
So, as one sinner to another, can we get started?
Blessings,
Jon Trott
* The "whatthehelen" blog site was pulled down within hours of the election ending. Another site has since taken the URL, but is missing most of the content the first site had.
** NIMBY = "Not In My Own Backyard" and refers to political liberals who suddenly become conservative when faced with the implications of progressive liberalism in their own neighborhoods.
Friday, March 02, 2007
JPUSA, Helen Shiller, and Uptown: One Historical Link
A few years back... like maybe ten or twelve?... I wrote a history of Jesus People USA. The whole thing is exciting only if you really want a multi-part, fairly extensive, and of course somewhat biased (heck, I *live* here!) take on JPUSA.
But in light of the just-passed election, and of some pretty badly done revisionist history done lately of Uptown and Helen Shiller and even JPUSA ... I offer part 7 (or "Action--Social and Political, part 1) and part 8 ("Action--Social and Politicial, part 2) of my history of our life together at JPUSA, "Life's Lessons."
I am a bit embarrassed by how earnest I sound in these recountings of our intentional community's rise toward greater social consciousness. But at the same time, it does offer some interesting side notes and maybe even a little illumination on how a bunch of mostly a-political Jesus freaks got pulled in -- mostly against their will! -- to the socio-political cauldron of Chicago's Uptown and 46th Ward.
But in light of the just-passed election, and of some pretty badly done revisionist history done lately of Uptown and Helen Shiller and even JPUSA ... I offer part 7 (or "Action--Social and Political, part 1) and part 8 ("Action--Social and Politicial, part 2) of my history of our life together at JPUSA, "Life's Lessons."
I am a bit embarrassed by how earnest I sound in these recountings of our intentional community's rise toward greater social consciousness. But at the same time, it does offer some interesting side notes and maybe even a little illumination on how a bunch of mostly a-political Jesus freaks got pulled in -- mostly against their will! -- to the socio-political cauldron of Chicago's Uptown and 46th Ward.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Helen Shiller Debates Bush... er, Cappleman
Gosh, but James Cappleman reminded me of our President last night. He was on Channel 11 (PBS) debating our alderperson, Helen Shiller. Helen got off to a nervous start but did fine once the debate got rolling. It was easy to tell she knew what she was talking about, and that Mr. Cappleman did not. For instance, he cited HUD standards for housing as a reason her Wilson Yard project was no good. Yet he seemed ignorant of the fact that the project was NOT a HUD project and that HUD standards are by no means the only standards for housing in Chicago or anywhere else. The fact that Wilson Yard passed through Chicago's rigorous approval process with flying colors seems not to register with Cappleman. Instead, he and his supporters write it all off as a conspiracy. Sigh.
Anyway, Helen did fine. What follows is a spotty and quickly dashed off (therefore not polished) look at what Helen's opponent (and supporters from their website) have to say.
I must say James Cappleman did remind me of President Bush. The facts didn't matter. What he did do was fear-monger, and alas, that works with some people. He also provided some unintentional humor.
Perhaps the funniest moment was when, in apparent desperation near debate's end, he cited a pro-Cappelman, anti-Shiller website, whatthehelen.com. This was a huge error on his part, as that website is one nasty, lie-filed hate fest. More on that in a moment. Helen -- astonished he'd brought the site up -- observed how it reflected his campaign and was run by folks backing him. He denied it, yet brought it up himself. Surreal. Helen repeated the site's url and urged Channel 11's viewers to log on themselves to see the nature of Cappelman's supporters.
So, about that website. Helen said, quite bluntly, that it was racist. I didn't see any overt mention of race on the site. But she's absolutely right in a larger sense, in that the site reflects the reactionary xenophobic core of Mr. Cappelman's campaign strategy. He seems to be all about creating and cultivating fear of "the other." And as I mentioned in a previous post regarding the aldermanic election, the racial breakdown of supporters for each candidate is self-evident and (in my opinion) not accidental. Uptown's poorer families are currently at risk due to wild land speculation and condo developments (many of which are less than half full). It is this class-based struggle which for the past twenty to thirty years has defined Uptown's political landscape. And, like other unsuccessful candidates running against Helen in the past, Cappleman uses the fear of some "haves" to marginalize the have-nots.
How is such fear cultivated? Since he did cite the whatthehelen site himself, let's go ahead and use it for some examples.
To hate properly one has to create and define "the other." And apparently the other in this case includes JPUSA (Jesus People USA), the ministry / intentional community I am a part of. Despite being a member of the Evangelical Covenant Church (a forward-looking Christian denomination with its international headquarters and renowned University and Seminary, North Park, within a mile or so of JPUSA's 920 W. Wilson home), JPUSA is labeled a "cult" over and over again by Cappleman's supporters. We are wildly accused of illegal and/or unethical activities, and videos are posted of our home (which frankly strike me as "stalker" video). Further, the site claims they are going to stalk, with video cameras, voters using our address (we are a precinct polling place for the Feb. 27 elections). If that happens, I will certainly call the election board and / or police and suggest that voter harassment is occurring.
The most bizarre video example offered by their site is one carefully documenting the existence of a "wire" between two of our buildings -- this wire is alleged evidence of wrong-doing on someone's part. (For my part, I think someone has a short in their wires.)
Our faith itself becomes a target. Unfortunately, I have to be self-referential here, as the site does bring me personally into their uninformed version of reality:
Did they actually watch "Jesus Camp"? I did. Here's my mostly positive review (which has been up for quite a while. Second, that is "Charismatic" with an "i" -- might want to bone up on your theology, er, philosophy (???). And no, "Jesus Camp" is not about the Charismatic movement, except incidentally. It is about Evangelicalism in general, especially the more far-to-the-right elements within it. Contrary to popular belief, there are also many centrist and to the left-of-center elements within evangelical and charismatic groups. This site is one man's attempt to explore that "blue evangelical" world, which includes folks such as N. T. Wright, "emergent church" leaders such as Brian McLaren, and one-time Chicagoan Jim Wallis (of D. C.-based Sojourners and sojo.net).
Anyone living in intentional community -- especially if that community has faith-based overtones -- can quickly be dispensed with simply by using the word "cult" to describe said group, or "cultist" to describe a member of said group. I will tell you here and now that doing so is essentially the same as calling a black person "nigger." Calling someone a "cultist" is to accuse them of not having meaningful thoughts of their own, not having a meaningful faith, not having compassion or depth of insight into our common humanity. A "cultist" is either stupid or brainwashed, or both, and a "cult" is a malevolent organization bent on using and abusing the innocent to its own nefarious ends. These terms are, like racial slurs, a shortcult -- er, shortcut -- to removing that person's and/or group's humanity from them and turning them into a vicious cartoon. So, yes, the site is racist in the larger sense of the "us/them" mentality.
Seriously, if someone out there actually wants to know more about either JPUSA or evangelicals who lean left -- and maybe some who don't as well -- do let me know. I don't mean to ruin the "JPUSA is a fundie right wing cult" idea... but it just happens not to jibe with hard fact, and is also a despicable slur.
Note that anti-religious bigotry is okay for them, though our traditionally Christian position on homosexuality is not okay and is called "anti-gay."
Yes, we do along with many Christians worldwide believe that sexual expression is meant for heterosexual marriage alone. This is not an unusual or extreme view, whether our friends and neighbors agree or not. But with it, we believe our gay neighbors are our neighbors, and know what the Lord asks us to do: "love your neighbor as yourself." We have consistently worked with gays over the years on political and social issues confronting Uptown, including and especially creating affordable housing. We have publicly and harshly criticized those mis-characterizing homosexuals as child-molesters, "unfit" to teach in schools, and the like, esp. groups such as the nefarious (and in my opinion satanic) "God Hates Fags" sect led by Fred Phelps.
But the bottom line is what does all that have to do with Helen Shiller -- who is pro-gay and has been so consistently? She's been endorsed over her opponent by most of the major gay media voices in Chicago. She works with all the folks in her ward whether she disagrees with them on some issues or not. As do we. Helen also works with most of the faith community in Uptown, much of which holds a position on homosexuality very much like JPUSA's.[*] That does not, again, mean Helen Shiller agrees with us on this. In short, the gay issue as it relates to Helen's re-election is a red herring her opponent is attempting to mislead folks with.
The burning issue in Uptown remains the poorer residents in the area. Schools are shrinking as poorer families are priced out and moved out in favor of new condos mostly stocked with young urban professionals. The neighborhood is increasingly white, whereas it has historically been the city's most racially diverse neighborhood.
As Helen herself said at the close of the Channel 11 debate:
* a footnote re charges made by the whatthehelen.com site that JPUSA removed all articles on homosexuality because we didn't want people to know about our "anti-gay" stance... Actually, those articles were (and technically still are) on our cornerstonemag.com site, which alas I administer. But it was built by someone else, and the ENTIRE SITE is down, except for a few very old links and the front page. Written in Micro$oft ASP by a good friend, the site was moved to a new server and since then all articles in the newer database format -- which is almost all of them -- are unavailable. I'm unable to figure out what is wrong, and have called in help. But at present, we don't have it up. To think I'd take down three quarters of my entire writing output over the years (along with that of many, many others) over a local election is a fairly paranoid way of thinking. The site has been down for months, and it remains a highly irritating state of affairs for me.
Anyway, Helen did fine. What follows is a spotty and quickly dashed off (therefore not polished) look at what Helen's opponent (and supporters from their website) have to say.
I must say James Cappleman did remind me of President Bush. The facts didn't matter. What he did do was fear-monger, and alas, that works with some people. He also provided some unintentional humor.
Perhaps the funniest moment was when, in apparent desperation near debate's end, he cited a pro-Cappelman, anti-Shiller website, whatthehelen.com. This was a huge error on his part, as that website is one nasty, lie-filed hate fest. More on that in a moment. Helen -- astonished he'd brought the site up -- observed how it reflected his campaign and was run by folks backing him. He denied it, yet brought it up himself. Surreal. Helen repeated the site's url and urged Channel 11's viewers to log on themselves to see the nature of Cappelman's supporters.
So, about that website. Helen said, quite bluntly, that it was racist. I didn't see any overt mention of race on the site. But she's absolutely right in a larger sense, in that the site reflects the reactionary xenophobic core of Mr. Cappelman's campaign strategy. He seems to be all about creating and cultivating fear of "the other." And as I mentioned in a previous post regarding the aldermanic election, the racial breakdown of supporters for each candidate is self-evident and (in my opinion) not accidental. Uptown's poorer families are currently at risk due to wild land speculation and condo developments (many of which are less than half full). It is this class-based struggle which for the past twenty to thirty years has defined Uptown's political landscape. And, like other unsuccessful candidates running against Helen in the past, Cappleman uses the fear of some "haves" to marginalize the have-nots.
How is such fear cultivated? Since he did cite the whatthehelen site himself, let's go ahead and use it for some examples.
To hate properly one has to create and define "the other." And apparently the other in this case includes JPUSA (Jesus People USA), the ministry / intentional community I am a part of. Despite being a member of the Evangelical Covenant Church (a forward-looking Christian denomination with its international headquarters and renowned University and Seminary, North Park, within a mile or so of JPUSA's 920 W. Wilson home), JPUSA is labeled a "cult" over and over again by Cappleman's supporters. We are wildly accused of illegal and/or unethical activities, and videos are posted of our home (which frankly strike me as "stalker" video). Further, the site claims they are going to stalk, with video cameras, voters using our address (we are a precinct polling place for the Feb. 27 elections). If that happens, I will certainly call the election board and / or police and suggest that voter harassment is occurring.
The most bizarre video example offered by their site is one carefully documenting the existence of a "wire" between two of our buildings -- this wire is alleged evidence of wrong-doing on someone's part. (For my part, I think someone has a short in their wires.)
Our faith itself becomes a target. Unfortunately, I have to be self-referential here, as the site does bring me personally into their uninformed version of reality:
"Jesus Camp" is a film about an evangelical Christian philosophy called "The Charasmatic Movement." The local connection to the movement can be found in Jon Trott, of Jesus People USA fame.I'm sorry. I actually laughed aloud on this one. I get it. I'm supposed to be a fundie who thinks George Bush is at the Right Hand of Jesus (or one day will be), and who thinks invading Iraq is part of God's plan to evangelize the middle-east. The fact I've repeatedly posted -- on this blog -- opinions harshly contrary to those views (whaddya think "Blue Christian" means, anyway?) is ignored by the Cappleman folk.
Did they actually watch "Jesus Camp"? I did. Here's my mostly positive review (which has been up for quite a while. Second, that is "Charismatic" with an "i" -- might want to bone up on your theology, er, philosophy (???). And no, "Jesus Camp" is not about the Charismatic movement, except incidentally. It is about Evangelicalism in general, especially the more far-to-the-right elements within it. Contrary to popular belief, there are also many centrist and to the left-of-center elements within evangelical and charismatic groups. This site is one man's attempt to explore that "blue evangelical" world, which includes folks such as N. T. Wright, "emergent church" leaders such as Brian McLaren, and one-time Chicagoan Jim Wallis (of D. C.-based Sojourners and sojo.net).
Anyone living in intentional community -- especially if that community has faith-based overtones -- can quickly be dispensed with simply by using the word "cult" to describe said group, or "cultist" to describe a member of said group. I will tell you here and now that doing so is essentially the same as calling a black person "nigger." Calling someone a "cultist" is to accuse them of not having meaningful thoughts of their own, not having a meaningful faith, not having compassion or depth of insight into our common humanity. A "cultist" is either stupid or brainwashed, or both, and a "cult" is a malevolent organization bent on using and abusing the innocent to its own nefarious ends. These terms are, like racial slurs, a shortcult -- er, shortcut -- to removing that person's and/or group's humanity from them and turning them into a vicious cartoon. So, yes, the site is racist in the larger sense of the "us/them" mentality.
Seriously, if someone out there actually wants to know more about either JPUSA or evangelicals who lean left -- and maybe some who don't as well -- do let me know. I don't mean to ruin the "JPUSA is a fundie right wing cult" idea... but it just happens not to jibe with hard fact, and is also a despicable slur.
Note that anti-religious bigotry is okay for them, though our traditionally Christian position on homosexuality is not okay and is called "anti-gay."
Yes, we do along with many Christians worldwide believe that sexual expression is meant for heterosexual marriage alone. This is not an unusual or extreme view, whether our friends and neighbors agree or not. But with it, we believe our gay neighbors are our neighbors, and know what the Lord asks us to do: "love your neighbor as yourself." We have consistently worked with gays over the years on political and social issues confronting Uptown, including and especially creating affordable housing. We have publicly and harshly criticized those mis-characterizing homosexuals as child-molesters, "unfit" to teach in schools, and the like, esp. groups such as the nefarious (and in my opinion satanic) "God Hates Fags" sect led by Fred Phelps.
But the bottom line is what does all that have to do with Helen Shiller -- who is pro-gay and has been so consistently? She's been endorsed over her opponent by most of the major gay media voices in Chicago. She works with all the folks in her ward whether she disagrees with them on some issues or not. As do we. Helen also works with most of the faith community in Uptown, much of which holds a position on homosexuality very much like JPUSA's.[*] That does not, again, mean Helen Shiller agrees with us on this. In short, the gay issue as it relates to Helen's re-election is a red herring her opponent is attempting to mislead folks with.
The burning issue in Uptown remains the poorer residents in the area. Schools are shrinking as poorer families are priced out and moved out in favor of new condos mostly stocked with young urban professionals. The neighborhood is increasingly white, whereas it has historically been the city's most racially diverse neighborhood.
As Helen herself said at the close of the Channel 11 debate:
"The real problem is that we have to have ways in which the breadth of people can see themselves reflected in terms of their needs and desires when [those needs and desires] are competing. And we can do that."In short, Helen is about building consensus in the midst of diversity. Her opponent is about destroying consensus through fear-mongering, then diversity through the systemic elimination of housing and aid to poorer Uptown residents. There's not much else to be said.
* a footnote re charges made by the whatthehelen.com site that JPUSA removed all articles on homosexuality because we didn't want people to know about our "anti-gay" stance... Actually, those articles were (and technically still are) on our cornerstonemag.com site, which alas I administer. But it was built by someone else, and the ENTIRE SITE is down, except for a few very old links and the front page. Written in Micro$oft ASP by a good friend, the site was moved to a new server and since then all articles in the newer database format -- which is almost all of them -- are unavailable. I'm unable to figure out what is wrong, and have called in help. But at present, we don't have it up. To think I'd take down three quarters of my entire writing output over the years (along with that of many, many others) over a local election is a fairly paranoid way of thinking. The site has been down for months, and it remains a highly irritating state of affairs for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)