As President-elect Obama begins appointing officials to his administration, the leftie blogosphere has been complaining that too many positions have gone to former Clinton officials, which they interpret as a shift to the center. And they object to it as such. But, the ideological origins of Obama’s in-coming administration are more complicated than a binary choice between Clintonistas and change. The Democratic Party pre-dates the arrival of the Clintons in Washington in 1993 and some of those who have worked hardest for Obama got their political start working for Gene McCarthy back in 1968.

Gregory Craig was an early supporter of Obama even though he had worked for the Clintons as well. He is slated to become White House Counsel. Craig got his start in politics working in Nebraska on the McCarthy campaign. John Podesta, who is in charge of the transition, also got his start in politics working for McCarthy, and his brother, the uber-lobbyist Tony Podesta, had the unenviable task of organizing Gary, Indiana for McCarthy in the face of a local political establishment that was firmly in the Kennedy camp. Craig and the Podestas have been a half-step away from power or closer ever since.

In 1968, Marty Peretz became actively involved in the McCarthy campaign, raising money and giving speeches on his behalf. Peretz’s daughter is even named Evgenia. In 2008, Peretz became a stalwart supporter of Obama. He again raised money and was especially helpful in persuading Jewish voters in Florida that they could trust Obama. Peretz’s 1960s anti-war leftism did not survive the 1973 Yom Kippur War, but his steadfast support for Israel through the years came in handy in Florida.

Sometimes the connections from the McCarthy campaign to the Obama presidency are exceedingly dense. Both John and Tony Podesta came to Colorado in 1974 to help Sam Brown get elected State Treasurer. The three had met on the McCarthy campaign. In the Carter administration, John Podesta worked for Brown at the Action agency. This year, Brown raised more than $1 million for Obama according to a source close to the campaign’s finance wing and has spent much of the past three election cycles raising money for congressional candidates while Podesta’s Center for American Progress provides those same candidates with policy briefings. Brown served in the Clinton administration as ambassador to the Vienna-based Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a position that became critical during negotiations about Bosnia and Kosovo because Russia was a member of OSCE but was not party to the multi-lateral organizations in Brussels. With Russia growing ever more menacing, look for Brown to return to Europe or land a job at Foggy Bottom.

I am sure there are others from the McCarthy campaign who remain active in the early stages of the Obama years. I am also sure there are some Democrats who came to Washington with Walter Mondale, or who found their own way here, and have risen to the ranks where they might expect an appointment. Obama is evidently going to bring some new blood with him, too, nominating Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security and installing his Chicago advisor David Axelrod as a White House counselor.

The "change or Clintonista" distinction is not just a distinction without a difference. It is a distinction that ignores one of American liberalism’s finest beliefs: Provenance is the least important thing to know about a person or an idea. It is a belief Gene McCarthy would endorse.

Cambridge, MA. I have been teaching a seminar on the Bhagavad Gita, reading it with two classical commentaries (by Ramanuja [11th century] and by Madhusudana Sarasvati [16th century]) and two modern commentaries (by Mahatma Gandhi and by Bede Griffiths, the Catholic monk who lived for many years in an ashram in south India). The Gita itself is a rather short work – just over 700 verses – that is perhaps a bit more than 2000 years old. It is part of the very large epic Mahabharata, which tells of a great war between two sides of a princely family; the Gita occurs just as the terrible final battle is about to occur. At the final moment, the leading warrior Arjuna hesitates in the face of the terrible slaughter that will surely follow, and is overcome by grief as he considers the various awful possible outcomes. His charioteer is Krsna, a leading prince who does not personally fight in the war — but has agreed to help Arjuna and his brothers in their battle; as the Gita tells us little by little, he is also the Lord of the universe, divine savior come down to earth. His teaching constitutes the verses of the Gita, which lead Arjuna on an intellectual and spiritual journey that unfolds the meaning of self, duty, detachment and detached action, service, and love of God — so that he can recover himself, and get up and fight, as is his duty.
     While the entire Gita is a fascinating topic for study, I am thinking about it right now — because today is the first day of Advent, when we begin to think in a prolonged, deeper way about the meaning of the birth of the Son of God in our midst. Advent, like other important times in the Church year, is an occasion for learning from other religions, bringing our Christian expectations and intuitions to bear on their texts, images, and practices - and thereafter bringing what we learn from some particular religious tradition back into our reflection on Christian truths, values and practices. This is the richer intelligent cultural exchange and learning, rooted in actual study and conversation. In his recently published letter Pope Benedict has once again reminded us that careful, contextual study - in culture - is superior to an unprepared effort to share on a neutral or purely religious level. We have minds, we must use them, even in the religious sphere, and so we must study.
   Hence the “Krsna in Advent,” focused on five verses near the beginning of chapter 4, where Krsna explains his coming into the world:
   5 Many a birth have I passed through, and [many a birth] have you [Arjuna]: I know them all but you do not.
   6 Unborn am I, changeless is my Self, of [all] contingent beings am I the Lord! Yet by my creative energy I consort with Nature — which is mine — and come to be [in time].
   7 For whenever the law of righteousness withers away and lawlessness arises, then do I generate myself [on earth].
   8 For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers, for the setting up of the law of righteousness, I come into being age after age.
   9 Who knows my godly birth and mode of operation thus as they really are, he, his body left behind, is never born again: he comes to Me.”
         (as translated by RC Zaehner, Oxford University Press, 1969).
     These verses, even more than most of the verses of the Gita, have occupied Hindu commentators and modern Western scholars, including Christian theologians. Many books have been written to compare and contrast Krsna and Christ, and to ponder the differences between their births and activities in the world. (See for instance Stephen Tsoukalas’ recent Krsna and Christ, and Jesuit Fr Ishanand’s older book by the same title). Often, such reflection has had a win/lose edge to it: if there are too many similarities, the uniqueness of the Christ-event gets lost from sight; and so distinctions must be made to show how the Christ-event is more unique, more important, and more true. Our faith tells us it IS more true, but we need not read witha competitive, must-win spirit. While such concerns are quite understandable and important in the larger realm of Christian faith and theology, I suggest that we have much to learn by a more refined, narrower inquiry that is really simple: what is Krsna saying in these verses, what did Hindu theologians find in his words, and what do they mean for us? And so, this and two more entries to In All Things before Christmas: Today, 1. What is Krsna saying? and then, in two segments, 2. What did the great Hindu commentator Ramanuja think Krsna was saying? and 3. What therefore do we learn from the Gita, in this Advent meditation, about the coming of Christ? (As usual: I beg my readers’ forbearance in advance, since I am writing a brief and speedy blog, not a treatise; nothing written here is my final word on the subject!)
     So, for today, what is Krsna saying? In brief: Verse 5 Krsna identifies himself with the human condition — that we all are born into human bodies many times over. It is not that the fact that Krsna is born multiple times that distinguishes him from Arjuna, but that Krsna understands the cycle of births, and remembers his previous births. Verse 6 Krsna describes himself in paradoxical language: he is transcendent and perfect, unchanging and unborn — and yet he comes into union with material nature, for the sake of birth, without losing his transcendent perfection. Verse 7 Krsna repeatedly responds to the situation on earth, the waning of that right order which is dharma and the arising of chaos and violence (in a-dharma). Verse 8 Krsna’s interventions in the world are for the sake of good people, and to destroy evil-doers, and thus to restore the right order of things. This is a repeated activity, since in every age good and evil are in tension and conflict in our world. Verse 9 The key human response to this divine activity is to know what Krsna has done, in truth, since it is this knowing that leads to union with Krsna.
     I hope my very brief comments state at least part of what Krsna is saying to Arjuna — and thus give us something to think about: how in Jesus God identifies himself with our human condition, yet without losing divine perfection; how he enters our world in order to side with those in need, against oppressors; how meditating on how Krsna does all this enables us to come into union with Jesus, born among us.
     Read the verses for yourself of course, and read more of the Gita if you can. (There are innumerable translations, including excellent new ones by Laurie Patton, Graham Schweig, and George Thompson; RC Zaehner's edition has most helpful notes; and you can find useful resources at the Gita Supersite ). To know this about how God is and how God acts — is the task we have in Advent, for the sake of a loving knowledge by which we approach him again. You may, of course, wish also to list difference: one birth vs. many births, for instance — but I hope you will not allow even important differences to make impossible the reflection to which the Gita invites us in Advent.
     More soon, on how the Hindu theologian Ramanuja found the deeper meaning of these verses. For we cannot read alone, we must read with those who have studied the Gita long before us.

Treat yourself to this Christmas video message from the children of a primary school in south London to the local councillor in charge of housing -- and prepare to shed a tear.

The school did a survey of the families of the schoolchildren, and found that 80 per cent were in overcrowded conditions -- "a bit squashed", as the children heart-meltingly put it.

Both survey and video were put together by London Citizens, the capital's largest alliance of congregations seeking social change. The children chosen to speak on it are the ones suffering from overcrowding -- and what they say is all true.

If the production values  -- especially the music and choreography -- seem unusually high for an "amateur" video, this may reflect the behind-the-scenes role played by Bernadette Farrell, lead organiser of South London Citizens and one of the leading Catholic liturgical composers of our day.

Meanwhile, spare a thought for poor Mr Roy Evans, Director of Housing of Wandsworth Council, who chose not to appear at the South London Citizens assembly the other night to respond to the video. It's hard to imagine he'll be able to hold out against an onslaught of this magnitude.

Father Jim Martin offers some parting thoughts on prayer in this last installment of his multi-part series. You can view all of Father Jim's videos and other video segments on America's new YouTube page.

And keep an eye on "The Good Word" for video reflections on Advent and Christmas from the editors.

Tim Reidy

Pope Benedict XVI greeted a group of pilgrims this past weekend with a short discourse on the Feast of Christ the King that has an obvious application to the political circumstance of the Catholic hierarchy in the United States in the wake of President-elect Obama’s decisive win among Catholic voters.

"Dear brothers and sisters," the Pope told the pilgrims, "this is what interests God. The kingship of history is of no importance to him -- he wants to reign in people's hearts, and from these, in the world: He is the king of the entire universe, but the crucial point, the place where his reign is at risk, is our heart, for there God finds himself encountering our freedom." Reign in the heart, then in the world. That is the proper order for political influence by the Christian Churches.

Unfortunately, political power inevitably invites that deadliest of the seven deadly sins, pride, and it is always tempting for those of us whose involvement in politics grows out of our religious motivations to conflate the two, to think that politics is about the Kingdom not the kingdom, to collapse our eschatons into our exit polls. And, this happens on both left and right.

But, Benedict is right. The primary means by which the Church should influence the realm of politics is by converting hearts and generating culture. This insight was the principal reason Don Luigi Guissani founded his movement, Communione e Liberazione and distanced himself from the Christian Democratic Party of his day. And, the Holy Father’s reliance on the insights of Don Guissani is well known.

So, as we Americans prepare to celebrate the quintessential American holiday, so soon after a tumultuous election, let us all remember that the kingship of history is less important than breaking bread with our friends. And, for those of us who are Catholic Americans, let us commit ourselves anew to the wonderful adventurous drama of the human heart where, as Pope Benedict said, "God finds himself encountering our freedom."

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! back on Monday with more analysis of the transition.

Here are the notes from President-elect Barack Obama's transition team's interview of a bold "non-partisan" choice, who came highly recommended, for a cabinet position:

Jesus of Nazareth.

An excerpt....
 
 8.) Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved in during the course of your career.
Lots here, unfortunately. Healed sick on Sabbath. (Big plus when we tackle healthcare reform.) Plucked ears of grain on Sabbath. (Will farming lobby be offended?) Spoke to Samaritan woman. (Samaritan-American vote is close to nil, except in blue states we own.) Chased businessmen from the Temple in Jerusalem. (Might be huge help in current anti-business climate.) Also, they were selling turtledoves. (Hello, PETA votes!) Unfortunately, charged with (I think) sedition by Roman government. Ask Berlusconi for details?

61.) Do you have any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used...to impugn your character.
Prostitutes, sinners, tax collectors. Also: formerly "possessed" people. Freaky actually, though to hear him describe it, they were pretty nice people, post-exorcism.

More here on Beliefnet.com

James Martin, SJ

From Catholic News Agency, comes this article, showing that you're not the only person who is reading "In All Things."  (A small correction: it was actually a blog post here, not an article in the magazine.)

'An official from the Vatican's Secretary of State department has reacted to a recent article suggesting that Pepperdine professor Douglas Kmiec should become the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican by saying, "it will never happen." On November 23, America Magazine published an article from Michael Sean Winters describing Professor Douglas Kmiec, the former Republican pro-lifer who became Obama’s top Catholic apologist during the presidential campaign, as "the perfect candidate" to become U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See.'

....

'Those who the article refers so disrespectfully as 'extremists on the right,' or 'the far right political fringe,' are the serious, loyal Catholics [the Vatican] precisely takes into account, because they are the ones who are there when the Church needs them," the official also explained.

Finally, regarding Winters’ claim that "Kmiec could do for the Democratic administration what (Mary Ann) Glendon has done for its predecessor," the official told CNA: "to be charitable, I will just say that I seriously doubt it."'  --CNA

James Martin, SJ

Over at his great blog at The Atlantic, Ross Douthat expresses sympathy for Catholics who voted against the war and economic meltdown rather than against Roe v. Wade:

John McCain did not lose this election because the Catholic clergy failed to anathematize Barack Obama loudly enough, or because Pennsylvanians and Michiganders thought they were voting for Roosevelt or Truman. He lost it because his party flat-out misgoverned the country, in foreign and domestic policy alike, and because of late the culture war has mattered less to most Americans than the Iraq War and the economic meltdown.

As an empirical matter, Ross is surely correct. And he is right to chide George Weigel and other Catholic conservatives for not offering more constructive criticism of the Iraq War, not to mention torture. But as a normative matter, Ross seems to sanction Catholics who voted on “several issues” not just one. This view strikes me as wrongheaded. Overturning Roe (and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton) should have been the top priority of Catholics this election and should still be.

For one thing, nothing in American life is as hidden, brutal, and pathetic as abortion. It is true that war is evil and poverty and economic distress are ills. Yet at least each occurs generally in plain sight. As the late Gov. Robert Casey pointed out, the same is not true of what happens in the nation’s abortion clinics: “on this issue, the media spare us the details.”

To grasp what occurs in abortion clinics, watch the acclaimed 2007 movie “Lake of Fire.” Twenty minutes into the film, a doctor is shown performing an abortion on a young woman who is 20 weeks pregnant. “Splat!” goes the glass case, filled with blood. Inside a steel pan are the contents of the fetus, and not just blood and bone and tissue. As the doctor shows for the camera, there five fingers on a tiny hand; an inch-long foot with five toes; and in the last image, a bulging eye exposed with a dark pupil.

So brutal is abortion that even staunchly pro-choice doctors don’t want to perform first-trimester abortions. In The Washington Post magazine this weekend, a young female doctor decides not to enter the ob-gyn field partly because after witnessing abortions being performed, she found them to be “barbaric,” “jarring,” and “surreal.”

The doctor gave a short lecture on first-trimester abortions. Then she showed the students how to grip the papaya with the scissors to hold the angle of the "cervix" straight on. With one hand, the doctor demonstrated how to administer a local pain killer, at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions. She picked up different sizes of dilators used to widen the cervix and advised against pushing them in too hard, because in a soft-skinned papaya, the dilators might come out the other side. In a woman, more pressure would be needed to slide the dilator past the cervix and into the cavity of the uterus.

The doctor next picked up the suction instrument, a manually operated vacuum suction syringe. It was attached to a cannula, or thin tube, that she inserted into the papaya. She rotated it around the fruit's cavity, pulling and pushing the syringe, suctioning the papaya's contents.

"This is the most important thing and the hardest to learn," the doctor said as she pulled out lots of seeds and juice, what in a real abortion she called the "products of conception," or POC. "You put the POC into a bowl, repeat if necessary, and examine them under a microscope to make sure you got everything," she advised.

There was silence as she passed around photos of a dish with a light under it from a real abortion. It contained something that looked like a cotton ball, a yolk sac, and some blood and tissue. It was hard to make out any parts of a fetus under 3 months old, which, she said, is when more than 90 percent of all abortions are performed.

Granted, many soldiers back off from killing the enemy. But rare is the soldier who in cold blood kills a helpless enemy. Yet killing a helpless, not to mention innocent, human is inherent in the act of abortion, or at least when the mother’s life is not at stake. Bernard Nathanson’s famous 1984 video is instructive on this point.

And last, no disease, accident, or war kills more Americans than the abortion regime sanctioned by Roe. Every day, more than 3,000 unborn infants are killed.

Ross probably agrees that overturning Roe should be Catholics’ top priority. Yet as far as I know, he has not explained why this is so.

My argument does not excuse conservative Catholics who wish to do nothing more than reverse Roe; abortion is the single greatest evil in American life, but it’s not the only evil. Yet I think of our situation as comparable to Americans in the late 1850s. War and poverty and economic distress needed to be fought. But slavery and the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott needed to be fought most of all.