http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm from the political science department at Union Univeristy Copyright 2013 Union University Fri, 17 May 2013 16:25:58 CST http://www.uu.edu/images/Crest_Horizontal-300.jpg http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm The Department graduated three majors and 5 minors today. The Department congratulates these students and wish them the best. Our graduates are:  <strong&rt;Kirby Lewis</strong&rt; of Lexington, TN will graduate from Union and prepare to enter graduate school at Vanderbilt University this fall where he will begin a M.A. in Economic Development. During his time at Union, Kirby was very active in student Government, participated in TISL rising to become Chief Justice of the TISL Supreme Court, and a member of Pi Sigma Alpha Honor Society.  <strong&rt;Kylie McDonald</strong&rt; of Fort Mills, SC is planning on a career in church discipleship.  She will work as a Student Minister at First Baptist Church of Ft. Mill and attend Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  While at Union, Kylie was very active in student government rising to become President of the SGA, participated in TISL becoming Clerk of the House, a member of the debate team, and member of Pi Sigma Alpha Honor Society.  <strong&rt;David Speer</strong&rt; of St. Louis, MO will serve as a Manager Trainee at Enterprise Rent-a-Car this next year and hopes to attend law school in the future.  David was an active member of Sigma Alpha Episalon fraternity and participant in intramural activies.  He was also President of the Union Pre-Law Society.  We also have severam minors graduating.  Jacob Melder (Communication Arts) is seeking employment in broadcast journalism.  Glena Nora (History) will continue her pursuit of an acting career.  Will Collier (Economics) will teach English in China next year and then hopes to find a job in a campaign or in government.   http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=360 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=360 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Sat, 18 May 2013 00:00:00 CST Friday night, Russell Moore, the President-Elect of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, spoke on “Rediscovering a Marriage Culture” at the Salt and Light Conference held at Union University.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;He said that many evangelicals today support traditional marriage but they fear that they will be compared to George Wallace standing in the school house door.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;Over the past ten years, we have seen opinion toward same sex marriage change dramatically, especially among young people.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;This change confirms many people’s belief that support for same sex marriage is an idea whose time has come and that this proves the adage that the arc of history bends toward justice.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;For these reasons, many evangelicals are leery of taking strong stands in favor of defending traditional marriage because they will be rejected by future generations for standing for something unjust.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;However, Moore believes that the debate is important because marriage is both more resilient than we think and more imperiled.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;He then discussed the ways that evangelicals have viewed traditional marriage and which approach is best. <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;<o:p&rt;</o:p&rt; <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;First, the moral majoritarian idea is that evangelicals stand with the silent majority of Americans politically and culturally. This view, based on Nixon’s Silent Majority that supported winning the war in Vietnam, thinks that counter-culture will not win because it does not reflect society now or in the future.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;These people look at the fact that most states affirm traditional marriage and thus believe it will continue to be supported without much effort.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;However, Moore thinks the flaw in this belief is that younger people are more progressive and polls consistently show this generation to be more supportive of libertine lifestyles. Over the long term then, states will eventually support same sex marriage. Instead, he believes that marriage is not defined by majority vote.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;Rather, states recognize marriage because they have to because of the important role that families play.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;For example when we ask who is responsible for children, everyone would say parents.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;Thus, the state would have to create something like marriage if it did not exist. <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;<o:p&rt;</o:p&rt; <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;Second, Moore discussed the moral libertarian position.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;He said that evangelicals tend to go from one extreme to another.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;People who grew up in traditional and legalistic churches tend to favor churches with more contemporary services and a greater emphasis on grace.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;Those who grew up in churches in chaos like the order provided by traditional churches.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;With churches being at the forefront of social issues over the past thirty years, many are reacting against that political involvement and claiming that we can hide in the opposite corner and avoid dealing with issues like same sex marriage by just focusing on the Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;Moore’s response is that we did that with divorce and look how that turned out.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;The simple fact is that culture change affects church members.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;People thought that Christians would not be affected by no-fault divorce and now many churches deal with couples that get divorced for non-scriptural reasons.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;Moore said that we can’t be conscientious objectors from the culture wars and say we must focus only on the Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;This would be like saying we love you and here is the Gospel but we won’t feed the poor, visit those in prison, take care of those less fortunate, etc.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;It is not an either/or proposition but a both/and.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;We can preach the Gospel and support traditional marriage and the two reinforce each other. <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;<o:p&rt;</o:p&rt; <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;Third, Moore argued for engaged communitarianism as the preferred position for evangelicals.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;This position understand marriage in the light of the Gospel and we can use natural law and Scripture to make our argument.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;From the Gospel perspective, we can turn to Ephesians 5 and see that marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and the church. Therefore, marriage is a living, on-going picture of the Gospel in action as marriage dramatically re-enacts the gospel message and promotes human flourishing by sacrificing for and supporting the other. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt; </span&rt;Furthermore, we sometimes miss the point of churches being involved in marriage in the first place. At most marriage ceremonies, we ask if people object to the marriage and to “speak now or forever hold your peace.” But why?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;The idea is that the church wants to make sure that a couple has a right to be married.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;Moreover, the couple makes vows in front of a church because the members promise to hold the couple accountable for the vows they take. We have missed this idea and churches need to return to it to restore marriage to its rightful place. <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;<o:p&rt;</o:p&rt; <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;Moore ended by saying that we need to treat homosexuals as people made in God’s image and sinners just like us.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;If we do this, we can engage those who disagree with us in winsome ways and have more opportunities to win people to our side.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;Finally, he said that we need to be optimistic about the fighting for traditional marriage because we need to remember that God has already won.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"&rt;  </span&rt;Standing for God’s beliefs should encourage us that we will all succeed because the true arc of history bends toward Jesus.  <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;A video of his presentation can be seen at http://new.livestream.com/uu/saltandlight   <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;<o:p&rt;</o:p&rt; http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=359 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=359 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Mon, 06 May 2013 00:00:00 CST  Last night, Robert George, the McCormack Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, spoke "Two Concepts of Liberty and Conscience" at the Salt and Light Conference honoring the legacy of Charles Colson.  In his talk, George compared and contrasted two worldviews regardings rights and conscience.  Both of these view harken back to two preeminent English philosophers in the 19th Century, John Stuart Mill and Cardinal John Henry Newman.   George began his talk focusing on Mill and his conception of rights.  Mill, the author of On Liberty, provides the philosophical foundation for rights and freedom of conscience that liberals use today.  Most of these arguments are based on Mill's harm principle that says "the actions of others should only be limited if they harm others."  From this idea, we have liberals claim the right for same sex couples to marry, the right to abortion, the right to smoke marijuana, and other things.  Since the people are autonomous individuals who can make decisions for themselves, they should be allowed to do what they choose because their actions do not harm anyone else.   Next, Professor George discussed the problems with the liberals interpretation of Mill.  First, George pointed out that Mill isnot just concerned about government limiting the rights of people but the passion of the majority.  Consequently, true Mill supporters should oppose the political correctness that leads liberals to denounce evangelicals as bigots for opposing same sex marriage, as waging a war on women over abortion, etc.  Second, he argues that liberals focus on the harm principle but forget its foundation.  Mill bases his harm principle on the ethical theory of utility which is based on "the permanent interest of man as a progressive being." What this means is that if an activity harms society at large, then it can be restricted because your right to engage in an action is based on social benefit not abstract rights.  Liberals never argue for expanded right as good for society as much as good for an individual.   Third, Mill wrote that the harm principle only applied to mature societies like England and other developed societies.  Therefore, this means that societies that fall into barbarism no longer have the freedom to act unimpeded because it no longer advances the nation.  Fourth, Mill had an optimistic view of human nature that saw humanity constantly progressing.  He could believe this because of the advances he saw in the Industrial Revolution and other reforms in Britain.  However if you take into account WWI and WWII, totalitarian regimes, genocide throughout the world, and other atrocities, it is hard to argue that society will constantly improve. Finally, he says that Mill does not base his theory on abstract rights to do something, as liberals claim. but instead rights are based a person's value as a person.  Having finished his discussion and critique of Mill, George began to explain how Cardinal Newman offered a better way forward in defining conscience.  First, George argues that Newman and Mill both reject abstract rights as the basis for conscience.  Moreover, Newman's belief in the fall means that he has a more accurate view of human nature and does not suffer the naivete that Mill demonstrates as the possibility of humans constantly progressing.  Instead, Newman bases rights on human flourishing. This basis provides strong rights to prevent us from descending into barbarism but are positive for human flourishing.   Second, Newman argues that all rights come with responsibilities and that is too often ignored.  This focus on duty is where conscience comes in.  Most liberals see conscience as the right to do as one pleases. This conception transforms conscience from stern monitor of self-will to the liscence.  However, Newman argues that conscience is one's best judgment informed by faith and reason about what one must and must not do.  The focus on what one must not do is important because of the importance it places on duty/responsibility of the person engaging in a right.   As he ended, Professor George talked about how basic civil liberties support each other.  For example, freedom of speech is usless is one cannot assemble and petition the government. Thus, we consider the First Amendment freedoms as the bedrock of our nation.  But if we look at the First Amendment, the first right listed is the freedom of religion.  Freedom of religion is so important because it determines our conscience and the way that we live our life and thus how we use our freedom. Thus, it shapes out other rights.  Finally, George discussed the public benefit of religion as a reason to support religious liberty.  Religious groups are intermediary institutions that serve as buffer against state power because they are a competing source of power by promoting a separate morality that constrains government power.  If you get rid of religion, then the state defines our morality which leads to no restraints on government. Plus, religious communities are dedicated to helping others and it is person interaction with people, not government payments, that show value to people and helps them improve. A video of his talk is available at http://new.livestream.com/uu/saltandlight  http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=358 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=358 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:00 CST  This past Monday, the Department hosted Evanspalooza, which is the year end departmental cookout and awards ceremony, at Dr. Evans house.  Over 40 individuals attended this event to eat, socialize, and celebrate.  During the awards portion, Kylie McDonald won the Outstanding Major award.  Kirby Lewis won the Tennessee Political Science Association's John Burgess Award for meritorious achievement in Political Science.  Jacob Melder won the award for Outstanding Minor.  The Department also gave out its research awards that come with a cash prize. The first place winner was Kylie McDonald who examined ethnic conflict in India.  Second place went to David Speer for his work on whether public financed stadiums are a good deal for cities.  Third place went to Kirby Lewis for his work on how culture affects politics.   http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=357 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=357 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 CST  Congratulations to Josselyne Bustillo for winning the 2013 Department of Political Science Bracket Challenge.  In a victory that surprised many people, including herself, she went from 8<sup&rt;th</sup&rt; place after the First Round to win the bracket challenge in the last game as Louisville’s championship sealed her victory.  Until next year’s bracket challenge, Josselyne will be the Justice Sonia Sotomayer "http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html"&rt;Wise Latina of Bracketology because her victory proves that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.” Josselyne will receive her award for winning the department bracket challenge at Evanspalooza later this semester. <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;<o:p&rt;</o:p&rt; <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;Coming in second is Kayla Ketner.  After Kayla amazing start, everyone assumed that she was the inevitable winner.  Due to her early success picking many upsets, Kayla had a 25 point lead after the first round and a 20 point lead going into the Elite 8. Unfortunately, she resembles someone in the 2008 Democratic primary who most expected to win but ultimately became the runner-up.  For this reason, she will be the Hilary Clinton of Bracketology for the next year.  And while she did not win this year, I am sure that Josselyne will make her a key advisor in the Bracketology World and everyone will expect her to win the Bracket Challenge in 2016.  <o:p&rt;</o:p&rt; <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;Placing third this year is Will Spicer.  While he did not win, Will would have been the champ if Michigan won last night.  What is more amazing is that Will spent this semester in Britain where he had more access to cricket matches than NCAA basketball but he still did well.  Appropriately enough since he was in Britain this semester, the Department is proclaiming Will the Prince Harry Spare Heir of Bracketology. If neither Josselyne or Kayla are able to perform their duties for whatever reason, the Department will coronate Will King of Bracketology. In the meantime, Will should stay away from Las Vegas. <o:p&rt;</o:p&rt; <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;In other bracketology news, President Obama wins the Most Improved Player award.  The president was in next to last place (18<sup&rt;th</sup&rt;) after the first round but moved up 11 spots to end the challenge in 7<sup&rt;th</sup&rt; place.  When asked why he performed so poorly early in the tournament, the president claimed that George W. Bush left his 1<sup&rt;st</sup&rt; round bracket in shambles and it takes a long time to recover but that we are making progress.  After the president’s poor first round, many began to criticize him for spending more time on bracketology than important things like submitting a budget on time instead of being two months late. But then Luke Trammell, last year’s Bracket Challenge winner, told everyone that he knew what it took to win a bracket challenge and that even he could not save a bracket after the mess George W. Bush left Obama.  From that point on, the president began his comeback. <o:p&rt;</o:p&rt; <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;Among the faculty, Dr. Evans overcame Dr. Watson’s early lead to win his third departmental bracket challenge.  After Dr. Watson was in second place after the First Round and Drs. Baker and Evans were in the bottom half of the standings, many wrote off Drs. Baker and Evans for fear that Dr. Watson had identified the platonic form of bracketology.  However, Drs. Baker and Evans rallied and passed Dr. Watson entering the championship game.  When Louisville defeated Michigan, Dr. Evans was able to leap Dr. Baker for the victory.  When asked what he credited to his victory, Dr. Evans said that philosophical bracket picks are fundamentally useless. People need to enter the 21<sup&rt;st</sup&rt; Century and use rigorous statistical analysis to pick winners correctly because empiricism beats theoretical musing.  For this reason, the Department proclaimed Dr. Evans the Nate Silver of Bracketology Prognostication, Dr. Baker the Karl Rove Election Night Meltdown of Bracketology Picking, and Dr. Watson the Dick Morris Romney Will Win By a Landslide Bracket Pundit. Dr. Ryan hoped to participate in the bracket challenge this year but he tried to submit his picks via his Facebook page and was unsuccessful.  <p class="MsoNormal"&rt;<o:p&rt;</o:p&rt; http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=355 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=355 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:00:00 CST Americans should celebrate gridlock in Washington rather than seeing it as an obstacle to progress, especially when nation faces a staggering amount of debt, according to FOX News contributor and Weekly Standard writer Stephen F. Hayes. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“I think it’s a positive outcome when gridlock in Washington has forced the politicians we send there to focus on a problem they have long ignored – or, more accurately, have exacerbated, have created,” Hayes said March 19 at Union University. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Hayes, senior writer at the Weekly Standard and author of two New York Times bestsellers, spoke in the Carl Grant Events Center as part of the 14th annual Union Forum luncheon lecture series. Addressing the political landscape in Washington, Hayes emphasized the importance of civility in political discourse as leaders with widely differing views of how government should operate try to tackle some of the nation’s problems. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Though George Wallace in 1968 declared, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two political parties,” Hayes said that’s not true in Washington today. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“There are tremendous differences between the political parties in Washington and outside of Washington,” he said, describing the proceedings there as “an epic battle between two competing and often wildly divergent ideologies represented however imperfectly by these two political parties.” <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;President Obama ran to Hillary Clinton’s left in the 2008 Democratic primary on almost every issue, Hayes said, even though Obama had tried to position himself previously as a centrist. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“In 2008 he ran as the anti-Bush, someone who could transform a dysfunctional Washington, but was nonetheless eager to give it more power,” Hayes said. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Hayes said Obama hopes to do for liberalism what Ronald Reagan did for conservatism – mainstream it and make it broadly acceptable. But Obama’s two major legislative triumphs early in his first term – the stimulus package and health care reform – caused Americans to react negatively. Rallied by Tea Party Republicans, voters handed the Democrats a sound defeat in the 2010 election, which returned control of the House to the GOP. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Many observers expected Obama, in the aftermath of the 2010 election, to follow the same path that Bill Clinton did in 1994 – moving to the middle. But instead, Hayes said, Obama did just the opposite, doubling down on his policies and calling for even more government spending. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“There was no give,” Hayes said. “This is what he believed, and he was going to run on it.” <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Republicans failed to capitalize in the 2012 election (Hayes described Mitt Romney as a good man but a bad candidate who ran a horrible campaign), and Obama strengthened his pledges for an activist government. But the recent debate about the sequester reflected poorly on the president and his promises of chaos if the mandated budget cuts became reality, Hayes said. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“The reason I think the sequester fight matters so much is because it’s a fight about a lot more than the sequester,” Hayes said. “This is the coming together of these two divergent views of how American government should relate to its citizens – of the role of government in American life. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; "&rt;“I think the White House correctly understands that if it loses this battle, it makes the case for activist government even more difficult for it to make,” he continued. “If you can cut 5.3 percent of domestic discretionary spending, and most people get along, what’s the case for adding more and more and more, particularly when it’s adding to the debt?” <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; "&rt;The gridlock in Washington, Hayes concluded, means that politicians can’t worry as much about peripheral issues. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; "&rt;“I’m thrilled that the discussion now is focused on our $16.7 trillion in debt,” he said. “These are issues, in my view, that are exactly what we should be debating. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; "&rt;Story by Tim Ellsworth, Union University Director of News and Media Relations http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=354 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=354 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:00:00 CST  Last night, Union Alum Josh Trent spoke to students about living and working in Washington, DC in an event sponsored by the Department of Political Science and the Honors Community.  Trent graduated from Union in 2001 after serving as President of the Student Government Association.  Since Josh left, he worked at the Labor Department, the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services, and earned a MA at the University of Bathd on a Rotary International Scholarship.  For the past four years, Trent has served as the Health Care Legislative Assistant (or policy advisor) for Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).  In his talk, Trent told the students the five lessons he has learned working in Washington.  First, there's no substitute for hard work.  While this is an obvious lesson, it is one that most don't follow.  Yet if you work hard, you stand out from most people and are able to advance.  Second, people are primary and relationships are a priority.  Washington is a place where people will use you to advance their goals and treat you based on who you are and how you might be able to help them.  Consequently, he has learned to treat everyone with equanimity because that is what Christ expects.  If you do this, you are able to build relationships which allows you to advance.  Practically every job that he has got in DC is a result of a relationship that he has built. This connects to his third lesson which is humility is essential.  The easiest way to get in trouble in DC is letting your pride guide your actions as he talked about three Christians who let their pride lead them to a downfall.  Being humble is also important because the person who works with you now might be your boss later. The better you treat someone, the more likely they will treat you well. Fourth, it is good to have godly ambitions.  Many Christians look poorly on ambitions but an ambition to do something that serves God and humanity is positive.  Many people in DC are just concerned about advancing themselves but the most effective people are the ones who put their ambition to a higher cause. Finally, he told students to be a life-long learner.  He said that each job he had required a large learning curve and that he has to work hard to meet the expectations.  Moreover, he has had five jobs in 10 years which means that you have to be adaptable and be willing to continue to learn to be effective.  As a health care analyst, he must always learn more to provide the best advice to Senators and in his attempts to influence the policy debates.  http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=347 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=347 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:00:00 CST On Tuesday, February 19<sup&rt;th</sup&rt;, the Department of Political Science and the Center for Politics & Religion hosted Dr. Bryan McGraw of Wheaton College. Dr. McGraw delivered a lecture entitled “Citizenship as Vocation”. In this lecture Dr. McGraw considered the question of whether and how Christians should think about their earthly citizenship given that involvement with worldly politics necessarily means making decisions that have awful consequences. Can Christians be both faithful Christians and effective citizens? Does getting involved with politics necessarily mean compromising our witness? Or should Christians even distinguish between their civic and religious identities? Drawing on the thought of St. Augustine, Dr. McGraw articulated a vision for Christian citizenship that would engage the messy world of politics without buying into a “anything goes”, ends-justify-the-means attitude. As such, Dr. McGraw set his own formulation against the Anabaptist approach of a John Howard Yoder and the realism of Max Weber and ultimately Niccolo Machiavlli. An Anabaptist approach calls for Christians to eschew government involvement altogether, and concentrate solely on being the Church in the world. The realist view holds that moral scruples should not restrict public officials who need to take “necessary” action. Dr. McGraw noted that both approaches assume that the political perspective completely defines the Christian. The Anabaptist does this by thinking that involvement in politics is so totalizing that it cannot help but compromise the faith of the believer; the realist sees politics as so fundamental and necessary that its needs outweigh any morality that would restrict it. McGraw’s Augustinian approach, in contrast, distinguishes between terrible things that a government may have to do with evil things that no one should ever do. For example, any criminal justice system will make mistakes and put innocent people in jail. This is a terrible but unavoidable consequence of doing politics, and the good outweighs the costs. At the same time, some might say that a government can torture and kill innocents if it would lead to a better military outcome in the War on Terror. This is beyond terrible, and falls into the realm of evil and ought not be done regardless of perceived beneficial outcomes. Distinguishing between terrible and evil things is a difficult but necessary part of thinking Christianly about politics. <br /&rt; <font class="Apple-style-span" color="#1f497d"&rt;<br /&rt; </font&rt; http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=348 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=348 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:00:00 CST  This morning, Dr. Sean Evans, the chair of the Political Science Department, spoke to the Good Morning Exchange Club concerning President Obama's second term.  He began by discussing how Obama wants to be a transformational president and usher in the "emerging Democratic majority" build on progressive values.  He explained how the president used his inaugural address to show that equality is the guiding star of American politics and how this connects Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, JFK, and himself. Thus, he suggests that passing equal pay, gay rights, immigration reform, ensuring voting rights, alleviating poverty, and climate change is consistent with the American tradition.  Moreover, we can see how Obama's belief that he represents a coalition of the ascendant (minorities, women, and the young) leads to his aggressive, uncompromising stand.  Since the Republicans are the minority party in the nation, they must change to appeal to these groups.  Obama wants to force the GOP to move so close to his proposals to split the Republican Party and make his liberal positions seem moderate.  Even if Obama does not achieve all of these policy objective, he will provide the path for future Democrats to follow much like FDR. While Obama has these goals, he may not be able to achieve them.  First, Republicans have few short term incentives to work with Obama since only 4 House Republicans represent districts that Obama won while there are many House and Senate Democrats in districts and states that lean Republican.  Second, Obama's strategy of going public may backfire as it does not provide the exchange (e.g., win for both sides) necessary for the legislaative machinery to work and the public stand on issues means that if he compromises or loses that he looks weak.  Third, there is not enough money to fund everything he wants which will lead the Democratic coalition to fight among themselves.  Finally, Obama is in a good position now but the problems of implementing health care, defending climate change and higher taxes, and the public's concern with high deficits means that he will be on the defensive through most of his term. http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=346 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=346 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:00:00 CST  Delegates from Union University to the 43rd General Assembly of the Tennessee Intercollegiate State Legislature earned the Best House Delegation award for their role in the proceedings Nov. 15-18 in Nashville. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;TISL is a statewide organization formed in 1966 to give college students a voice in state government. The nonpartisan organization convenes a General Assembly each year, for students to introduce debate and vote on legislation about state issues. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Eighteen Union University students participated in the event. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;The Best House Delegation is chosen by the executive council based on the recommendation of the speaker, speaker pro tem and chief clerk of the House of Representatives. Union’s delegation was chosen from among the 39 colleges and universities represented at the assembly. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Sophomore Jenaye White, a political science minor, was one of 10 legislators who received the Carlisle Award, TISL’s oldest and most prestigious award. Junior Brooks Brasfield was named Best New Senator. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Union junior Michael Adkisson served as speaker pro tem of the Senate and senior Kirby Lewis, a political science major, served as the Supreme Court’s chief justice. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Next year, junior Luke Trammel, another political science major, will serve in the Senate. Trammel was elected to serve as lieutenant governor and president of the Senate during next year’s assembly. Trammel’s year-long role includes planning workshops and recruiting more universities to participate in TISL. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Trammel said serving in the Union Student Government Association’s Senate meetings prepared him well for being involved at TISL and for presiding over the TISL Senate next year. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“We try to structure Senate at Union like the real legislature, so that will definitely be a big help in preparing for next year,” Trammel said. “TISL is as realistic as possible. It is a hands-on experience ... and also a great networking tool to meet new people and to increase your group of friends.” <div&rt;revision of a story by Samantha Adams from Union University Media Relations </div&rt; http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=340 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=340 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:00:00 CST  This Fall, the Department hosted its quadrennial Debate Watches for Union and the Jackson community.  Over the course of the debates, Union students, high school students, and some prospective Union students watched the three presidential debates as a group. During the debates, the groups cheered their favorite candidates, followed the reaction to the debate on Twitter, and then discussed the debates afterwards.  Like most people, Union students clearly thought that Governor Romney won the first debate with his strong performance. In the second and third debate, Union students were more closely divided thinking that Obama did slightly better. Overall, the students, like most of the country, thought that the two candidates in the second debate was very hostile toward each other referring to the two candidates as "acting like kindergartners." In the third debate, the students thought that President Obama had a better grasp of foreign policy but thought that Governor Romney showed sufficient knowledge and an even temperment to be a legitimate Commander-in-Chief. However, most students did not think that the debates changed their mind over for whom they would vote.  The Debate Watches continues the Department's fall election activities. Earlier, the Department hosted viewing parties for the convention acceptance speeches of Congressman Paul Ryan, Governor Mitt Romney, and President and Vice President Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  Next, the Department will host an election party where we will watch the election returns. Then two days later, the Department will host a forum on the election results.  http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=335 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=335 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:00:00 CST  Despite a sobering analysis of affairs in such places as China and the Middle East, former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he remains “fundamentally optimistic” about the future of the United States. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“Even though the United States faces enormous obstacles, most of them are self-inflicted, and we also have the power and the means to overcome them, just as America has done in the past,” Gates said Oct. 4 at Union University’s 15th annual Scholarship Banquet. “It will take real leadership, political will, shared sacrifice and a willingness to compromise.” <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Gates, who served as defense secretary for both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, was the keynote speaker for the annual event at the Carl Perkins Civic Center, which raised about $500,000 for student scholarships. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Prior to his role leading the Defense Department, Gates was president of Texas A&M University for four years. He served in the Central Intelligence Agency for nearly 27 years, including nine years at the National Security Council. He was CIA director from 1991-1993. Gates now serves as chancellor of the College of William and Mary. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;With a background in higher education, Gates talked about the influence that institutions like Union University can have in the lives of young people. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;While some Union graduates could become important business and political leaders or make other noteworthy contributions, Gates said that for most Union students, their experience at the university “is an important step toward the most important goal of all – becoming a good man or woman, a person of faith, integrity and decency, a person of moral courage, not afraid of hard work, of strong character, the kind of person who built this country and made it into the greatest democracy and the greatest economic powerhouse in the history of the world. “ <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Union prepares its graduates to live lives based on unchanging values, Gates said, such as faith, trustworthiness, loyalty, honesty and kindness – characteristics that are often in short supply today, with too many people seeking riches and power without regard to doing what’s right or decent. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Gates spent the bulk of his address focusing on global issues of importance. He said that anxiety about the upcoming presidential election is in order because of the high stakes involved, and acknowledged that a majority of Americans have lost faith in the nation’s governing institutions. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;But while many Americans are largely focused on domestic problems, Gates said the rest of the world is becoming more complex and more turbulent all the time. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;He discussed the impact of China on global trade and the security implications of China’s growth. China, Gates said, is investing trillions of dollars in new military capabilities and technologies that could alter the balance of power in the Pacific. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“Yet in spite of China’s continuing growth and growing influence, its leadership continues to exhibit paranoia and hypersensitivity to the smallest international criticism or internal political challenge,” Gates said. “I believe that’s because China’s leaders are keenly aware that the country’s bullish macroeconomic numbers conceal major underlying weaknesses.” <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Among those weaknesses, Gates cited China’s dependence upon exports that are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain and a middle class that is growing more politically engaged and more intolerant of rampant corruption in the governing class. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Though the United States has reasons to be concerned about various situations in China, Gates said there was no “geostrategic reason” for China to be an enemy. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“If we treat China as an enemy, it will surely become one,” he warned. Gates also addressed developments with the Iranian nuclear program, which Israel sees as a more direct and immediate threat than the United States does. Though Israel doesn’t have the military capabilities to destroy all of Iran’s buried nuclear facilities at a long range, he said the Israelis may feel compelled to strike, an event that could have tragic consequences. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“Let there be no mistake,” he said. “An Israeli attack would be seen in the region and in the Muslim world more broadly as being sanctioned and underwritten by the United States, with the same consequences that would attach to a direct American strike.” Even with all the challenges facing the United States both domestically and internationally, Gates said whether the nation sustains its global, economic, political and military preeminence will depend not on the actions of other countries, but on the actions of Americans themselves. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“It will depend on our character as a people, the sacrifices we are willing to accept and the courage and unity we demonstrate,” Gates said. “I believe we will prove worthy.” <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Article originally written by Tim Ellsworth, Union University Director of Media Relations <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;  http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=333 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=333 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:00:00 CST  American Christians invest too much enthusiasm and zeal in politics -- or the “city of man” -- instead of focusing their affections on the city of God, according to New York Times columnist and author Ross Douthat. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“People still have deep religious impulses, incredible religious energy, but they don’t feel like they can pour it into religious institutions anymore, so they pour it into political institutions and into partisan causes,” Douthat said Sept. 20 at Union University. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Douthat spoke in the Carl Grant Events Center as part of the 14th annual Union Forum luncheon lecture series. The author of “Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics,” Douthat said that the word “heresy” was a perfect description for American religion today. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“America, I don’t think, is a post-Christian nation in any meaningful sense of that term,” he said. “I think we’re still a nation that is fascinated by Christian ideas, deeply influenced by Christian theology, obsessed with the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.” <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;But rather than adhering to orthodox beliefs that Christians have held for centuries, and adhering to a theology that is contained in Scripture and authenticated by the church, Americans have embraced a “pop spirituality” form of religion popularized by talk shows and televangelists, Douthat said. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;He used Joel Osteen as an example of American Christianity, comparing him to Billy Graham in the sense that both were evangelists who weren’t highly politicized. Like Graham, Osteen preaches a message of God’s universal love that isn’t heavy on dogmatic details but emphasizes what God has to offer to every individual. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;For Graham, however, that was only half of the message. The other half was human sinfulness and the fact that everyone needs to repent before God, and Douthat said such concepts are absent from Osteen’s preaching. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Douthat rejected the idea that the United States is “trending inexorably toward secularism and outright unbelief.” <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“Man is by nature a religious animal,” he said. “It’s very unlikely that you could actually have a civilization in which religion belief just outright disappears. Instead, it just takes different forms. As the older forms decline, new forms emerge to take their place.” <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;In today’s society, Douthat argued, politics is one place where people’s loyalties are misplaced, and partisan polarization is one factor that has led to the weakening and decline of institutionalized Christianity. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;In the past, the two political parties in the United States were more ideologically mixed than they are now, with a large number of liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, Douthat said. He cited the civil rights movement of the 1960s as an example of an effort driven by religious activists who brought their Christian convictions to bear on the public square. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;The effort succeeded in large part, Douthat said, because it was bipartisan in nature. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;But today, with a few exceptions, Democrats are primarily the only party for liberals, while Republicans offer the only choice for conservatives. While such uniformity may make it easier for voters to choose between candidates, it also poses a challenge for Christians in the public square. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;“Christianity as a faith is not supposed to be identical with ideology,” Douthat said. “It’s not supposed to be identical with partisan causes. It’s supposed to transcend and challenge partisan loyalties. <p style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; font-family: Frutiger, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; "&rt;Article from Union University Website http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=331 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=331 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:00:00 CST  <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;color:#1F497D; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"&rt;On Monday evening the Department of Political Science and the Center for Politics & Religion sponsored a lecture by Dr. Matthew Franck in the Grant Center for commemorate Constitution Day. Dr. Franck’s lecture, “Individual, Community and State: How to Think about Religious Freedom,” drew from James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance as well as the Second Vatican Council to argue that governments are meant to serve the people and their associations rather than the reverse. Both James Madison and the Catholic Fathers who authored Dignitatis Humanae argued that the freedom of religion and conscience require a free assent by their very nature. In other words, the government cannot force citizens to believe what they honestly do not believe, nor can the government require citizens to perform actions they believe violate their consciences. He critiqued the Obama administration’s record on religious liberty by describing several cases and legal controversies previous and ongoing. At the conclusion of the address, Dr. Franck took several questions from the audience, which was made up of a mix of students from Union and Jackson State, as well as members of the community. </span&rt; http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=328 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=328 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:00:00 CST  This morning, Dr. Evans spoke to the Good Morning Jackson Rotary Club.  This Rotary Club has been inviting Dr. Evans to speak about politics for several years. The focus of his talk today was the state of the campaign. Dr. Evans told the members that President Obama has a slight lead right now because the Democrats had a better convention but that the convention bounce will likely come down and the race will be tied again. Furthermore as polls move from Registered Voters to Likely Voters, the polls should tighten as Republicans are usually more likely to vote.  While Obama is looking in good shape overall, he still has to worry about presidential approval being below 50%. In most elections, presidential vote is equal to presidential approval which indicates that President Obama remains in trouble. However, Mitt Romney has not taken advantage of this by expanding the electoral college playing field. Right now, the traditional GOP states of IN, NC, and MO should return to the Republican fold but Romney has not expanded beyond that to put any Democratic leaning states in play, with the possible exception of WI. This means that the electoral college map still favors Obama at this point. Moving forward, Evans said four things can affect the race. First, debates are less about winning and more about the challenger crossing a threshold of credibility to be president which helps Romney. Plus, the public expects Obama to perform better which makes it easier for Romney to exceed expectations. Second, campaign ads may make a difference. Romney has saved a lot of his money to flood the airwaves as people begin to pay attention. The potential problem is that Democrats have spent over $100 million to define Romney as a heartless businessman and the ads may be too late to change people's minds. Third, voter intensity is important because this is a base driven election. Whichever candidate gets his voters to the poll will win.  While Democratic activitists love Obama, not all supporters are as strongly committed to supporting him. Conversely, Republicans are not thrilled with Romney but their dislike of Obama may motivate them to vote. Fourth, outside events may influence the means by which voters evaluate the president. however, these events must be prolonged, important, and involve the president. Events that last a day or two are unlikely to reshape the election.  Overall, this election should be a close race, much like 2000 and 2004.  In such a close race, campaigns matter and President Obama has run a better campaign. If he wins, he can credit his campaign. If Romney wins, it probably has less to do with his campaign and more to do with underlying factors relating to the economy. He ended his discussion by talking about the congressional elections.  First, the consensus is that the Democrats will pick up seats in the House of Representatives but the Republicans will keep the majority.  Second, the Senate is a toss-up. Due to the Republican nature of these states in a presidential election year in a polarized environment, the Republicans should pick up seats in NE, ND, MT, and WI but lose ME. This would make the Senate 50-50.  Democrats are targeting the NV (Heller) and MA (Brown) seats.  Heller should survive due to the ethics problem wieghing down his opponent while Brown will have a tough road winning in heavily Democratic MA. That puts a lot of emphasis on VA which is a toss-up which will most likely go to the winner of the presidential vote there. Republicans have outside shots at CT, FL, and OH.  For MO, McCaskill should win unless Todd Akin quits (which is unlikely). However, the weight of an unpopular president that she is a strong supporter of may cost her her seat, unless Akin says some more stupid things. http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=326 http://www.uu.edu/dept/politicalscience/news.cfm?ID=326 webmaster@uu.edu (Department of Political Science at Union University) Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:00:00 CST