Do All the Good You Can: How Faith Shaped Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Politics
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Gary Scott Smith provides us with an excellent religious biography of United Methodist, Hillary Rodham Clinton. As he has previously published this type of biography, his experience capturing the way that the United Methodist faith has influenced Hillary is riveting. Do All the Good You Can presents a well-integrated understanding of how Wesleyan and United Methodist lived, practical theology is foundational to the speeches, actions, and political motivations of Clinton. Smith shows he is well versed in Wesley, as each of the chapter titles is a Wesleyan quote—and any Wesleyan scholar will notice this right off the bat. Throughout the work, he points to United Methodist niche documents such as Clinton’s use of the Book of Resolutions and Book of Doctrines and Discipline to help her discern her faith and political positions. Smith portrays Clinton’s faith as typically United Methodist—one that is characterized by a lifelong journey of growing in faith lived out as love in action, one that wrestles with theologies of other persons and other religions, and one that refuses to sit idly by and watch the world around her suffer.Each chapter of the book examines a different aspect of Clinton’s political and religious life. Proceeding in chronological order, the book begins with her adolescent years, where the United Methodist influence of Don Jones moulded her faith. Proceeding through her time as First Lady of Arkansas and of the United States, Smith captures how in this position, Clinton used her faith time and time again to enact bold legislation—particularly when it came to the rights of children and access to better education and healthcare. Proceeding then through her time as a senator and secretary of state, Smith’s best analysis of Clinton is in the 2016 presidential run. Here, Smith contextualizes the complexity of Clinton’s lived, (sometimes un-)spoken, and embodied faith against Donald Trump’s repulsive reputation. Smith articulates well how misogyny and false rhetoric were rampant in the election cycle of 2016 eventually leading to her loss.A few things that this book does not do well are very particular to United Methodist scholarship. Smith does not capitalize ‘The’ in ‘The United Methodist Church’, a pet peeve of any United Methodist scholar. His work does not ground Clinton’s faith and politics in the long line of Methodist women who have engaged politically because of the same theological motivations of Wesley. Some of this context would have helped situate Clinton’s faith as a Methodist woman who is living into the true call of Wesley.I would recommend this book for those who are looking to learn about how the Methodist faith compels a person to act politically, for anyone interested in United Methodism and American politics, or for anyone interested in how politics and religion are understood and practised from a woman’s perspective. Overall, this is a fantastic work that adds much needed nuance to the life, ministry, and public witness of Hillary Rodham Clinton, while also helping Methodists understand how our faith is lived out in the public realm.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,023 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».