These are hard times and SOB is not alone in being unable to articulate a coherent expression of where we are and where we should be heading. However, there are a number of topics I have been wrestling with and will deal with shortly, but as a preview, please accept this short list as an overview of what I think we will have to deal with in 2005:
1. Civil War in Iraq - The Sunnis and Kurds are calling for postponing the elections and the (majority) Shias are demanding that they remain on schedule. Thus the stage is set for full fledged civil war no matter what position the American occupying forces take.
2. Economic melt-down for the U. S. - the continuing decline of the dollar will encourage European and Asian pressure that will contribute to a major destabilization of the currency and a concommitant collapse of business.
3. Fracture of the Republican Party - now that all power resides in Republican hands all members will be demanding their own share and the forces that led to Republican unity over the last few decades will collapse as each demands what he is due; Democrats will not be able to exploit this situation - at least not for a while.
4. Diplomatic isolation of the United States - the new SecState will offend and further alienate foreign powers even as public opinion abroad continues to collapse.
5. And, of course, the Rich will get richer and the Poor will get poorer and the media will treat it as just the way things are. Nothing to be done.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Saturday, November 06, 2004
All of Us vs Bush
Why Should We Accept This?
OK, just asking, but what is with Kerry to give up without even a close look at what seems to have gone wrong? Why not at least spend a day or two reviewing the various problems and reported cliches? Why not demand some independent analysis of what seem to be very odd discrepencies between exit polls and final tallies? Why the early surrender?
I am not amused. And I am not alone.
Let's Rethink Our Whole Approach
CHECK OUT THIS EXCELLENT PIECE BY SAM SMITH
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FALSE FAITH DEFEATS LOUSY WORKS
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sam Smith
ONE OF THE THINGS that happened on Tuesday was that the Republicans'
false faith trumped the Democrats' lousy works. Since the former was an
act of imagination and the latter a product of experience, the odds
inevitably favored the former.
But both sides were lying. After all, what sort of moral values
considers an unborn fetus sacred but not the lives of 100,000 innocent
Iraqis? And what sort of life on earth can the Democrats offer as an
alternative to the millennium if they haven't one good new idea in three
decades?
We are, some theologians will tell you, in the midst of the fourth
"Great Awakening" in this country's history, periods in which life
becomes so complex and frightening that there is a rush to pristine
promises in various guises. The conservative Ralph Reed gave a fair
thumbnail on PBS a few years back: "The first great awakening gave rise
to the revolutionary struggle. The second great awakening. . . some of
the most uproarious revivals that have ever been seen in western
civilization, led to the formation of the American anti-slavery society.
Then, of course, the third Great Awakening of the 1890's leading to the
social gospel movement and the progressivism of which are Wilson and
Theodore Roosevelt, and today historian Robert Fogel has argued a fourth
Great Awakening has begun with rising church attendance among baby
boomers, and this shift to evangelicalism and fundamentalism of which
the electronic church was such an important part."
The range of beliefs in such awakenings can be quite broad; in fact some
scholars believe the latest Great Awakening began in the 1960s with the
myriad spiritual adventures of the left. William G. McLoughlin, a
history professor at Brown, wrote a book in 1978 that placed within the
phenomenon the Beats, the popularity of Zen, and “experimental
life–styles associated with drugs, the hippies, the practice of
occultism, and rock concerts.”
Wrote David Carlin (at the time both a philosophy professor and chair of
his local Democratic Party), "The famous Woodstock concert of 1969 was a
kind of sacramental event for the Fourth Awakening, analogous to the
revivalistic camp meeting of earlier awakenings."
If so, it has produced an ironic twist: the spirit of the '60s has
almost disappeared and the Democratic Party is being beaten and kicked
by people who claim moral values but ignore every part of the Bible save
that which condemns the nature or habits of people they don't like
anyway.
While such periods are clearly a misery to go through, there is some
light to be found at the end of the tunnel vision: these awakenings tend
to be preludes to some big leap in American social and political change
including the American Revolution, the abolition movement, and 20th
century social democracy.
As Rhys H. Williams has put it: "Many have credited awakenings with
helping to foster religious pluralism, advance ideas sympathetic to
political democracy and social reform, and forge an American national
identity. More contentious is the claim that awakenings are cyclical,
representing a religious response to social and cultural change. They
help believers come to terms with the stress that change produces and
adjust the culture to new modes of societal organization."
And they are not unique to the American republic. Both the spread of
totem poles in the Northwest, and the long nosed god icons that swept
through Native American cultures that had little other contact, were in
part reactions to stress created among American Indians by European
terrorists unsecuring their homeland. And residents of Pacific islands
disrupted by World War II and its aftermath engaged in what came to be
known as "cargo cults" with salvation supposedly dropping from planes
like the crates they had seen so often.
This, however, is small comfort to those living through one of these
eras of hysteria, hate, and hoopla. Further, there is the problem that
Charles McKay outlined back in 1852: "Men, it has been well said, think
in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only
recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
As a skeptic who neither partakes in the blood of Christ nor has danced
with a Sufi while, say, making the slow transition from Presbyterianism
to Buddhism, I sometimes think of what is happening as a struggle
between two sects, rather than between the faithful and non-believers.
On the one hand, we have those enveloped in a retro version of
Christianity devised by some highly successful hustlers and charlatans
and, on the other, we have liberals who seem to believe that politics
begins and ends with abortion and gay rights, and in a cargo cult that
delivers salvation through SUVs, Botox injections, the right wine, and
Vanity Fair. It is rare anymore to hear liberals speak of things like
pensions, health care, or labor issues. Thus they have little to talk
about to the fundamentalists save the issues that divide them so
sharply.
This, of course, is not how it is explained and that just makes it all
the more difficult to wend our way out of this mess. The common thread
across all forms of faith these days - conservative and liberal - is
certainty and a contempt for those who do not share it. Our recovery,
however, will begin not with triumph over our tormentors but with the
discovery of tolerance for them.
Tolerance is a word much out of favor these days yet its organization
and promulgation is the underlying genius of the American system. It has
been also described as the concept of reciprocal liberty: I can't have
my freedom unless I give you yours. It is based not so much on shared
values as indifference to unshared values.
Once you decide it isn't your business to save, control, or correct a
born-again Christian or, conversely, two gays headed for the altar, life
not only becomes simpler but considerably more pleasant. Which is why I
tell conservatives complaining about gay marriage, "Then don't marry a
gay;" and liberals who complain about born-agains, "Look we've always
had Christian fundamentalists in this country; we just used to call them
things like 'New Deal Democrats.'"
The magnificence of America lies in the opportunity not to have to agree
with other Americans. The Christian right has clearly forgotten this,
but so have liberals who send all sorts of unconscious signals that
they will be no less vigorous in imposing their values should they get
the chance. Both these messages, because of their implicit aggression,
become extremely threatening to the other side.
But what if we talked about, negotiated, and even possibly celebrated
the fact that we are and probably will be different from each other? Not
in a smarmy, goody-goody way but as citizens honestly talking about our
differences and seeking mutual accommodation and safe ground.
Impossible? If they managed in South Africa and in the American South,
maybe we can do it, too.
If we tried, one thing we might soon discover is that it would be
advantageous to exclude the media and the politicians from the
discussion. They are, after all, the ones with the greatest vested
interest in the fight.
And what exactly do we have to lose? The stability of views on abortion
in recent years, for example, suggests very little. We have, in fact,
adopted an approach to these issues that sanctify our own beliefs
without moving them forward much.
And when a politician of the Democratic Party actually reached out to
those who weren't like himself earlier this year, the liberal
establishment was quick to trash him. Howard Dean's desire to get the
votes of people who drove pickups with confederate flag stickers was
excoriated by Kerry and Gephardt. Yet Kerry could have used some of
these guys the other day.
By any traditional Democratic standards, this constituency should be a
natural. After all, what more dramatically illustrates the failure of
two decades of corporatist economics than how far these white males have
been left behind? Yet because some of them still cling to the myths the
southern white establishment taught their daddies and their
granddaddies, Gephardt and Kerry didn't think they qualified as
Democratic voters.
It is also interesting to note, as William Saletan did in Slate, that
Dean received quite a different reception before he became the
frontrunner. Here's what he told the Democratic National Committee last
February:
"I intend to talk about race during this election in the South. The
Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us,
and I'm going to bring us together. Because you know what? White folks
in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals on the
back ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health
insurance either, and their kids need better schools too."
Wrote Saletan: "I have that speech on videotape. I'm looking at it right
now. As Dean delivers the line about Confederate flags, the whole front
section of the audience stands and applauds. It's a pretty white crowd,
but in slow-motion playback, I can make out three black people in the
crowd and two more on the dais, including DNC Vice Chair Lottie
Shackelford. Every one of them is standing and applauding. As Dean
finishes his speech, a dozen more black spectators rise to join in an
ovation. They show no doubt or unease about what Dean meant."
In fact, the best way to change people's minds about matters such as
ethnic relations is to put them in situations that challenge their
presumptions. Like joining a multicultural political coalition that
works. It's change produced by shared experience rather than by moral
revelation. Martin Luther King understood this as he admonished his
aides to include in their dreams the hope that their present opponents
would become their future friends. And he realized that rules of correct
behavior were insufficient: "Something must happen so as to touch the
hearts and souls of men that they will come together, not because the
law says it, but because it is natural and right."
This doesn't happen logically, it doesn't come all at once, and it
doesn't come with pretty words. Tom Lowe of the Jackson Progressive
voted a few years ago in favor of a new Mississippi flag without the
confederate symbolism. But in retrospect, he wrote later, he realized
that the voters' rejection of the change was a honest reflection of
their state of mind: "Perhaps a time will come when we have truly put
aside our nasty streak of racism. When that time arrives, maybe we will
choose to replace the flag with something more representative of our
ideals. On the other hand, when we reach that point, we may no longer
care about the symbolism of the Confederate battle flag. Or perhaps we
will keep it for another reason: to make those of us that are white
humble by reminding us of our less than honorable past."
The decline the Democratic Party has been accelerated by the growing
number of American subcultures deemed unworthy by its advocates: gun
owners, church goers, pickup drivers with confederate flag stickers. Yet
the gun owner could be an important ally for civil liberties, the
churchgoer a voice for political integrity, the pickup driver a
supporter of national healthcare. Further, the greatest achievements of
the Democratic Party, both in terms of good legislation and votes, came
under presidents who were willing to deal with southern politicians far
more retrograde than your average Falwell follower. Today's liberals
never could have created the Great Society; they would have hated too
many of the people whose votes were necessary to make it happen.
The strange thing - strange that is to an era that believes that all
progress is the product of propaganda and salesmanship - is that taking
a more laisse faire attitude towards what others think offers greater
opportunity for antagonists to come together simply because they have
less to fear from each other.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't air gripes. In fact, one of the greatest
services the media could provide would be to end religion's exemption
from its standards of "objectivity," and treat any religion that engages
in politics as a political institution whose faith is worth no greater
honor than that of the Democratic National Committee. If we took the
media halo away from religion we would quickly discover that it is
religion that is currently at the heart of our global problems,
dangerously propelled by three fanatics abusing their alleged faith: bin
Laden, Bush, and Sharon. Moral values have put the entire world at risk.
But, as has been said, the powerful do what they will, and the weak do
what they must. And part of the latter in times of fear and uncertainty
is to find safety in faith, homilies, and congregations of the like
minded. Then the powerful exploit the anxiety of those living in the
caves of their souls, making it all that more difficult for them to find
the light again.
Our job, however, is not to resave them for rationalism, but to engage
in real politics: which is the art of getting people to think about the
right things, things like what is happening to their jobs, healthcare,
and housing costs. And if a gun-toting, abortion hating nun wants to
help you save the forest, to put her on the committee. Change comes when
the people who the powerful wish to keep apart discover their true
common interest.
There is no progress in polarity; the secret is in unexpected alliances.
It's way past time to find the issues around which they can form. And
then to make it happen.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FALSE FAITH DEFEATS LOUSY WORKS
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sam Smith
ONE OF THE THINGS that happened on Tuesday was that the Republicans'
false faith trumped the Democrats' lousy works. Since the former was an
act of imagination and the latter a product of experience, the odds
inevitably favored the former.
But both sides were lying. After all, what sort of moral values
considers an unborn fetus sacred but not the lives of 100,000 innocent
Iraqis? And what sort of life on earth can the Democrats offer as an
alternative to the millennium if they haven't one good new idea in three
decades?
We are, some theologians will tell you, in the midst of the fourth
"Great Awakening" in this country's history, periods in which life
becomes so complex and frightening that there is a rush to pristine
promises in various guises. The conservative Ralph Reed gave a fair
thumbnail on PBS a few years back: "The first great awakening gave rise
to the revolutionary struggle. The second great awakening. . . some of
the most uproarious revivals that have ever been seen in western
civilization, led to the formation of the American anti-slavery society.
Then, of course, the third Great Awakening of the 1890's leading to the
social gospel movement and the progressivism of which are Wilson and
Theodore Roosevelt, and today historian Robert Fogel has argued a fourth
Great Awakening has begun with rising church attendance among baby
boomers, and this shift to evangelicalism and fundamentalism of which
the electronic church was such an important part."
The range of beliefs in such awakenings can be quite broad; in fact some
scholars believe the latest Great Awakening began in the 1960s with the
myriad spiritual adventures of the left. William G. McLoughlin, a
history professor at Brown, wrote a book in 1978 that placed within the
phenomenon the Beats, the popularity of Zen, and “experimental
life–styles associated with drugs, the hippies, the practice of
occultism, and rock concerts.”
Wrote David Carlin (at the time both a philosophy professor and chair of
his local Democratic Party), "The famous Woodstock concert of 1969 was a
kind of sacramental event for the Fourth Awakening, analogous to the
revivalistic camp meeting of earlier awakenings."
If so, it has produced an ironic twist: the spirit of the '60s has
almost disappeared and the Democratic Party is being beaten and kicked
by people who claim moral values but ignore every part of the Bible save
that which condemns the nature or habits of people they don't like
anyway.
While such periods are clearly a misery to go through, there is some
light to be found at the end of the tunnel vision: these awakenings tend
to be preludes to some big leap in American social and political change
including the American Revolution, the abolition movement, and 20th
century social democracy.
As Rhys H. Williams has put it: "Many have credited awakenings with
helping to foster religious pluralism, advance ideas sympathetic to
political democracy and social reform, and forge an American national
identity. More contentious is the claim that awakenings are cyclical,
representing a religious response to social and cultural change. They
help believers come to terms with the stress that change produces and
adjust the culture to new modes of societal organization."
And they are not unique to the American republic. Both the spread of
totem poles in the Northwest, and the long nosed god icons that swept
through Native American cultures that had little other contact, were in
part reactions to stress created among American Indians by European
terrorists unsecuring their homeland. And residents of Pacific islands
disrupted by World War II and its aftermath engaged in what came to be
known as "cargo cults" with salvation supposedly dropping from planes
like the crates they had seen so often.
This, however, is small comfort to those living through one of these
eras of hysteria, hate, and hoopla. Further, there is the problem that
Charles McKay outlined back in 1852: "Men, it has been well said, think
in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only
recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
As a skeptic who neither partakes in the blood of Christ nor has danced
with a Sufi while, say, making the slow transition from Presbyterianism
to Buddhism, I sometimes think of what is happening as a struggle
between two sects, rather than between the faithful and non-believers.
On the one hand, we have those enveloped in a retro version of
Christianity devised by some highly successful hustlers and charlatans
and, on the other, we have liberals who seem to believe that politics
begins and ends with abortion and gay rights, and in a cargo cult that
delivers salvation through SUVs, Botox injections, the right wine, and
Vanity Fair. It is rare anymore to hear liberals speak of things like
pensions, health care, or labor issues. Thus they have little to talk
about to the fundamentalists save the issues that divide them so
sharply.
This, of course, is not how it is explained and that just makes it all
the more difficult to wend our way out of this mess. The common thread
across all forms of faith these days - conservative and liberal - is
certainty and a contempt for those who do not share it. Our recovery,
however, will begin not with triumph over our tormentors but with the
discovery of tolerance for them.
Tolerance is a word much out of favor these days yet its organization
and promulgation is the underlying genius of the American system. It has
been also described as the concept of reciprocal liberty: I can't have
my freedom unless I give you yours. It is based not so much on shared
values as indifference to unshared values.
Once you decide it isn't your business to save, control, or correct a
born-again Christian or, conversely, two gays headed for the altar, life
not only becomes simpler but considerably more pleasant. Which is why I
tell conservatives complaining about gay marriage, "Then don't marry a
gay;" and liberals who complain about born-agains, "Look we've always
had Christian fundamentalists in this country; we just used to call them
things like 'New Deal Democrats.'"
The magnificence of America lies in the opportunity not to have to agree
with other Americans. The Christian right has clearly forgotten this,
but so have liberals who send all sorts of unconscious signals that
they will be no less vigorous in imposing their values should they get
the chance. Both these messages, because of their implicit aggression,
become extremely threatening to the other side.
But what if we talked about, negotiated, and even possibly celebrated
the fact that we are and probably will be different from each other? Not
in a smarmy, goody-goody way but as citizens honestly talking about our
differences and seeking mutual accommodation and safe ground.
Impossible? If they managed in South Africa and in the American South,
maybe we can do it, too.
If we tried, one thing we might soon discover is that it would be
advantageous to exclude the media and the politicians from the
discussion. They are, after all, the ones with the greatest vested
interest in the fight.
And what exactly do we have to lose? The stability of views on abortion
in recent years, for example, suggests very little. We have, in fact,
adopted an approach to these issues that sanctify our own beliefs
without moving them forward much.
And when a politician of the Democratic Party actually reached out to
those who weren't like himself earlier this year, the liberal
establishment was quick to trash him. Howard Dean's desire to get the
votes of people who drove pickups with confederate flag stickers was
excoriated by Kerry and Gephardt. Yet Kerry could have used some of
these guys the other day.
By any traditional Democratic standards, this constituency should be a
natural. After all, what more dramatically illustrates the failure of
two decades of corporatist economics than how far these white males have
been left behind? Yet because some of them still cling to the myths the
southern white establishment taught their daddies and their
granddaddies, Gephardt and Kerry didn't think they qualified as
Democratic voters.
It is also interesting to note, as William Saletan did in Slate, that
Dean received quite a different reception before he became the
frontrunner. Here's what he told the Democratic National Committee last
February:
"I intend to talk about race during this election in the South. The
Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us,
and I'm going to bring us together. Because you know what? White folks
in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals on the
back ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health
insurance either, and their kids need better schools too."
Wrote Saletan: "I have that speech on videotape. I'm looking at it right
now. As Dean delivers the line about Confederate flags, the whole front
section of the audience stands and applauds. It's a pretty white crowd,
but in slow-motion playback, I can make out three black people in the
crowd and two more on the dais, including DNC Vice Chair Lottie
Shackelford. Every one of them is standing and applauding. As Dean
finishes his speech, a dozen more black spectators rise to join in an
ovation. They show no doubt or unease about what Dean meant."
In fact, the best way to change people's minds about matters such as
ethnic relations is to put them in situations that challenge their
presumptions. Like joining a multicultural political coalition that
works. It's change produced by shared experience rather than by moral
revelation. Martin Luther King understood this as he admonished his
aides to include in their dreams the hope that their present opponents
would become their future friends. And he realized that rules of correct
behavior were insufficient: "Something must happen so as to touch the
hearts and souls of men that they will come together, not because the
law says it, but because it is natural and right."
This doesn't happen logically, it doesn't come all at once, and it
doesn't come with pretty words. Tom Lowe of the Jackson Progressive
voted a few years ago in favor of a new Mississippi flag without the
confederate symbolism. But in retrospect, he wrote later, he realized
that the voters' rejection of the change was a honest reflection of
their state of mind: "Perhaps a time will come when we have truly put
aside our nasty streak of racism. When that time arrives, maybe we will
choose to replace the flag with something more representative of our
ideals. On the other hand, when we reach that point, we may no longer
care about the symbolism of the Confederate battle flag. Or perhaps we
will keep it for another reason: to make those of us that are white
humble by reminding us of our less than honorable past."
The decline the Democratic Party has been accelerated by the growing
number of American subcultures deemed unworthy by its advocates: gun
owners, church goers, pickup drivers with confederate flag stickers. Yet
the gun owner could be an important ally for civil liberties, the
churchgoer a voice for political integrity, the pickup driver a
supporter of national healthcare. Further, the greatest achievements of
the Democratic Party, both in terms of good legislation and votes, came
under presidents who were willing to deal with southern politicians far
more retrograde than your average Falwell follower. Today's liberals
never could have created the Great Society; they would have hated too
many of the people whose votes were necessary to make it happen.
The strange thing - strange that is to an era that believes that all
progress is the product of propaganda and salesmanship - is that taking
a more laisse faire attitude towards what others think offers greater
opportunity for antagonists to come together simply because they have
less to fear from each other.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't air gripes. In fact, one of the greatest
services the media could provide would be to end religion's exemption
from its standards of "objectivity," and treat any religion that engages
in politics as a political institution whose faith is worth no greater
honor than that of the Democratic National Committee. If we took the
media halo away from religion we would quickly discover that it is
religion that is currently at the heart of our global problems,
dangerously propelled by three fanatics abusing their alleged faith: bin
Laden, Bush, and Sharon. Moral values have put the entire world at risk.
But, as has been said, the powerful do what they will, and the weak do
what they must. And part of the latter in times of fear and uncertainty
is to find safety in faith, homilies, and congregations of the like
minded. Then the powerful exploit the anxiety of those living in the
caves of their souls, making it all that more difficult for them to find
the light again.
Our job, however, is not to resave them for rationalism, but to engage
in real politics: which is the art of getting people to think about the
right things, things like what is happening to their jobs, healthcare,
and housing costs. And if a gun-toting, abortion hating nun wants to
help you save the forest, to put her on the committee. Change comes when
the people who the powerful wish to keep apart discover their true
common interest.
There is no progress in polarity; the secret is in unexpected alliances.
It's way past time to find the issues around which they can form. And
then to make it happen.
What the Hell Are We Doing in Fallujah?
U.S. Warplanes Pound Targets in Fallujah
There is an old addage that "Jobs seek tools" - perceived needs inspire those that must deal with them to search for tools to fix the problem. Thus the belief that Iraq possessed those scary "weapons of mass destruction" led the Bush administration to select the U. S. Military as its tool of choice to deal with the ugly job of protecting us from Saddam. Alas, once it was clear that Iraq did not possess any WMDs and the rationale for being there shifted to "bringing democracy", the military seemed to be the wrong instrument. Much embarrassment and confusion followed. But the corollary to "Jobs seek tools" is that "Tools seek jobs." The very heavy presence of the military begged for a mission. The Bush administration found it one - the "pacification" of Iraq in preparation for "free" elections next year. Those of us who are old enough to remember how successful "pacification" was in Viet Nam are not encouraged by this.
Fallujah's crime is that it doesn't want us there. How can we not understand that? We wouldn't want them here! Our response is that until they quit killing us we will kill them. Their position is that as long as we are in their country and trying to kill them, they will seek to kill us. Sounds like Catch-22 to me.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Bush vs All of Us
I somehow really didn't think it could get any worse. In fact, I had a false sense of confidence that things were bound to get better because almost everyone I spoke to was truely sick of Bush. I thought we were due for a change for the better. Alas. Now we face the very real possibility that America as we knew her is doomed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
