From Iraq to Afghanistan, Will History See It Any Differently?
Victorious English general Oliver Cromwell, Britain's Lord Protector, leader of the New Model Army and victor in England's Civil War once told a portrait painter, who assumed he would be covering over anything unsightly, to paint him "warts and all." And so Cromwell has come down through the years full of warts - physical imperfections, yes, but also more long-lasting ugliness: brutal treatment of Ireland, unforgiven by the Irish still; the execution of a king (who, as monarchs of the time go, wasn't so bad); and an oppressive Puritan reign. No dancing, no colorful art, no fun.
Fast forward to our place and time, we find an American leader faced with a decision regarding Afghanistan. President Obama had promised to get the troops out of Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq, and send them to Afghanistan where we join other NATO forces in fighting one of the unquestionable evil forces in the world, the Taliban. Of course, Mr. Bush sent our troops to topple another unquestionably evil force, Saddam Hussein. Which they did. All that got the then-president was about a 26 percent approval rating and a legacy-loss for John McCain in 2008.
The current presidential portrait of Barack Obama is a pretty one. Some luster has come off the President's image by way of a nasty health care debate, but forces seem to be rallying toward some sort of health care reform. But for Americans, war tends to un-do presidencies. President Johnson had his Great Society social programs unravel at the feet of Vietnam. President Carter was done in by a failed military mission over Iran. The senior President Bush’s successful campaign leading an international coalition to oust Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait left him with soaring popularity ratings, but the glory was too short-lived for a second term. The junior Bush’s adventurism in Iraq turned into a long-lasting insurgency; Iraq is a foreign policy wart that will endure for a long time.
Even as Obama acknowledges his Nobel Peace Prize, he is pursuing what he calls "a necessary war." Which is to say, a necessary wart. Losing American lives in the faraway Hindu Kush, over a long struggle, with little chance of a democratic Afghanistan, will not be what wins a second term for Obama. How can he minimize the blemish? He can keep NATO involved to take some of the heat, and win some big ones at home - on health care; on energy; and on economic recovery - using his domestic victories to mask the wart that will be Afghanistan.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Firoozeh Dumas: Her Funny Book, Funny in Farsi, Made Her an Enemy of the State in Iran
Firoozeh Dumas is a very funny Iranian. Check that! She is a very funny American who happens to be an Iranian immigrant. Her book, Funny is Farsi, is a story -- rather a series of stories -- about growing up as an immigrant. But it is about more than that. It is a book about growing up -- as an immigrant; as an Iranian; as the target of hate (following the hostage situation in Tehran in 1979); and as a kid who didn’t fit in. Mostly it is a bunch of stories by a humanitarian. But not some preachy spiel; these are funny stories. She’s also spreading the message on the lecture circuit. The message preaches tolerance. Correct that! It is a collection of stories that point to the importance of tolerance.
Ms Dumas came to Fairfax, VA to speak with social studies teachers about her book, but also with a message about how to view other cultures. She mentioned a possible homework assignment: have students watch the news for a week, and then come to general conclusions about the United States based on the news stories. They will find, she said, that the conclusions will be pretty darn depressing. Now, we live here. We can counterbalance the news with our own experiences. But when there is news of the Middle East, it is all negative, and most of us do not have that experience to provide ballast. And so the stereotype of the Middle East does not include lightheartedness, humor, fun, and playfulness.
Ms Dumas told of a woman who was surprised to learn that Iranian parents hold birthday parties for their kids -- just like Americans! Even at McDonalds!
In marketing her book, Ms Dumas was told by literary agents that Americans would not buy a funny book about Middle Easterners. People wanted the stereotype -- the terrorists, the oppressed, the brutalized and the torturers. Not birthday parties. But her book was published, and a funny thing happened: it became a best seller in the U.S., and a very popular book in Iran. The gatekeepers of American books by and large called it wrongly when it came to what Americans wanted. And stereotypes took another hit in Iran. The people (who, contrary to popular belief in this country, tend to like Americans) ate up the book. The radical Shi’ite government -- not so much. She cannot go back to the country of her birth because the government does not share the people’s sense of humor.
The message to educators was about news bias, but also about taking care not to insert preconceptions about kids based on cultural stereotypes.
A note about educators: Maybe because in any situation where someone is at the front of the room talking, that someone is usually the teacher, when we are not up there, we don’t know how to act. Just as teachers typically make awful students (in classes full of teachers, we tend to do all of those annoying things that we won’t let our students do, from the audible yawns to texting in class to talking too loudly), they also tend to be rude audiences. In the midst of Ms Dumas’ wonderful talk, there were teachers on their Blackberries, teachers looking at their watches, teachers holding little meetings. During the question-and-answer session, one woman gave a speech, as if to say, "You are but an internationally acclaimed author and award-winning speaker, but now you have had credibility conferred upon you by an eighth grade civics teacher. You are so blessed!"
Ms Dumas spoke of the need for tolerance and diversity, and told of the nastiness she saw when some people reacted to the Iranian hostage situation in 1979. But fully embedded were glowing testaments to the American system. She spoke in almost spiritual terms about the idea of a library, a place filled with books that one may borrow. In Iran, no library…no books! Human rights for Ms Dumas are not something to be taken lightly; when she talks to people in Iran, they long to be free to read, to write, to dress, to Cerf the Web as they see fit.
Funny in Farsi is about funny things that happen to a family. It is also a book that takes tolerance, diversity, inclusion, cultural understanding, our shared humanity, all the things that people have in common seriously. When she addresses groups, she does the same in a very engaging way.
Ms Dumas came to Fairfax, VA to speak with social studies teachers about her book, but also with a message about how to view other cultures. She mentioned a possible homework assignment: have students watch the news for a week, and then come to general conclusions about the United States based on the news stories. They will find, she said, that the conclusions will be pretty darn depressing. Now, we live here. We can counterbalance the news with our own experiences. But when there is news of the Middle East, it is all negative, and most of us do not have that experience to provide ballast. And so the stereotype of the Middle East does not include lightheartedness, humor, fun, and playfulness.
Ms Dumas told of a woman who was surprised to learn that Iranian parents hold birthday parties for their kids -- just like Americans! Even at McDonalds!
In marketing her book, Ms Dumas was told by literary agents that Americans would not buy a funny book about Middle Easterners. People wanted the stereotype -- the terrorists, the oppressed, the brutalized and the torturers. Not birthday parties. But her book was published, and a funny thing happened: it became a best seller in the U.S., and a very popular book in Iran. The gatekeepers of American books by and large called it wrongly when it came to what Americans wanted. And stereotypes took another hit in Iran. The people (who, contrary to popular belief in this country, tend to like Americans) ate up the book. The radical Shi’ite government -- not so much. She cannot go back to the country of her birth because the government does not share the people’s sense of humor.
The message to educators was about news bias, but also about taking care not to insert preconceptions about kids based on cultural stereotypes.
A note about educators: Maybe because in any situation where someone is at the front of the room talking, that someone is usually the teacher, when we are not up there, we don’t know how to act. Just as teachers typically make awful students (in classes full of teachers, we tend to do all of those annoying things that we won’t let our students do, from the audible yawns to texting in class to talking too loudly), they also tend to be rude audiences. In the midst of Ms Dumas’ wonderful talk, there were teachers on their Blackberries, teachers looking at their watches, teachers holding little meetings. During the question-and-answer session, one woman gave a speech, as if to say, "You are but an internationally acclaimed author and award-winning speaker, but now you have had credibility conferred upon you by an eighth grade civics teacher. You are so blessed!"
Ms Dumas spoke of the need for tolerance and diversity, and told of the nastiness she saw when some people reacted to the Iranian hostage situation in 1979. But fully embedded were glowing testaments to the American system. She spoke in almost spiritual terms about the idea of a library, a place filled with books that one may borrow. In Iran, no library…no books! Human rights for Ms Dumas are not something to be taken lightly; when she talks to people in Iran, they long to be free to read, to write, to dress, to Cerf the Web as they see fit.
Funny in Farsi is about funny things that happen to a family. It is also a book that takes tolerance, diversity, inclusion, cultural understanding, our shared humanity, all the things that people have in common seriously. When she addresses groups, she does the same in a very engaging way.
Growing Together -- More Choices, More Cultural Homogeneity
We may not see how the choices we have in today’s world reflect how homogenous our society is becoming, noisy town hall meetings notwithstanding. But a recent moment in the White House found a country music star singing a song to the nation’s first black president -- a song inspired by and about him; a song with Civil Rights referenced; a song extolling the global world. It was more than a moment; it was a signature moment. When Brad Paisley sang his hit Welcome to the Future to President Obama the moment underscored two key notions: choice and homogeneity. We have choices that cross cultural boundaries, and these choices are bringing us closer and closer together.
Young people who’ve grown up on the Internet, "music sharing," cable TV, and Facebook take these for granted. But it is a quantum leap in communications from a generation ago. Truly there are significant problems with these technologies, but they provide people today with an incredible gift: choice.
A generation ago, news was owned by three main networks (and perhaps a single local station). Information was hard copy -- one had to dig up information in books, magazines and reports. The EM spectrum was a carefully controlled and monitored as a vital asset in the Cold War. But today information flows freely.
Last week I was driving across country. Whenever we needed directions (GPS, one a security priority, can now be utilized with your phone), opinions about restaurants, or tickets to some event, we could use a phone, from the car, for instant results. What is available online today is astounding.
When it comes to music, the technology makes the choices endless. At your fingertips you have current music and past music, local music and world music, urban music and country music -- along with reviews of songs, and the means to make your own music.
Yet with this wonderful portal of music choice, with its possibilities for using music to better understand people from all over the world, some people still use music to divide. "This is OUR music, and if you are one of us, it is YOURS too." And "If you like another style of music, you are not one of us." It’s music-as-a-weapon.
It is like bigotry. The generation with the greatest access and closeness to people different from themselves, the most diverse generation in history, seems to be the one using the language of intolerance and prejudice.
People should realize that as a society we are becoming more and more homogenous. In today’s world, nowhere is unaffected by the rest of the world. In the excellent Heard Museum in Phoenix, AZ, a showcase of Native American culture, there is a film about the Havasupai of the Verde River canyons. They chose to be isolated in the beautiful canyons, and yet they spoke English, wore jeans and t-shirts with rock band logos, and rode Toyota four-wheelers.
The people of this nation have been pulled together by three main forces: service in the military, education, and the Internet. The military was the first great integrating force. Not without problems, it nonetheless brought people of varying backgrounds into a merit-based system. The nation’s education system today teaches tolerance. Ninety-one percent of the nation’s children go to public schools like Edison High School in Northern Virginia. It is a high-performing International Baccalaureate school with a minority white population. Elite private schools, once lily-white, show a different, more diverse, more integrated face today. The newest trend is online education, where you can take classes in which you communicate with people all over the world in your "virtual classes."
This leads to the culturally-unifying force of the Internet. You wish to buy authentic Navajo jewelry from the Navajos themselves? You used to have to go to Arizona; now you can go online. I once tried to buy a product made in a city I was visiting. The woman at the counter told me I would be better off ordering on the Internet! Improbably, the language of the Internet is now known everywhere. It is a cultural commonality, in a homogenous world.
Today we have more choices than ever before, in a world brought together by these choices.
Young people who’ve grown up on the Internet, "music sharing," cable TV, and Facebook take these for granted. But it is a quantum leap in communications from a generation ago. Truly there are significant problems with these technologies, but they provide people today with an incredible gift: choice.
A generation ago, news was owned by three main networks (and perhaps a single local station). Information was hard copy -- one had to dig up information in books, magazines and reports. The EM spectrum was a carefully controlled and monitored as a vital asset in the Cold War. But today information flows freely.
Last week I was driving across country. Whenever we needed directions (GPS, one a security priority, can now be utilized with your phone), opinions about restaurants, or tickets to some event, we could use a phone, from the car, for instant results. What is available online today is astounding.
When it comes to music, the technology makes the choices endless. At your fingertips you have current music and past music, local music and world music, urban music and country music -- along with reviews of songs, and the means to make your own music.
Yet with this wonderful portal of music choice, with its possibilities for using music to better understand people from all over the world, some people still use music to divide. "This is OUR music, and if you are one of us, it is YOURS too." And "If you like another style of music, you are not one of us." It’s music-as-a-weapon.
It is like bigotry. The generation with the greatest access and closeness to people different from themselves, the most diverse generation in history, seems to be the one using the language of intolerance and prejudice.
People should realize that as a society we are becoming more and more homogenous. In today’s world, nowhere is unaffected by the rest of the world. In the excellent Heard Museum in Phoenix, AZ, a showcase of Native American culture, there is a film about the Havasupai of the Verde River canyons. They chose to be isolated in the beautiful canyons, and yet they spoke English, wore jeans and t-shirts with rock band logos, and rode Toyota four-wheelers.
The people of this nation have been pulled together by three main forces: service in the military, education, and the Internet. The military was the first great integrating force. Not without problems, it nonetheless brought people of varying backgrounds into a merit-based system. The nation’s education system today teaches tolerance. Ninety-one percent of the nation’s children go to public schools like Edison High School in Northern Virginia. It is a high-performing International Baccalaureate school with a minority white population. Elite private schools, once lily-white, show a different, more diverse, more integrated face today. The newest trend is online education, where you can take classes in which you communicate with people all over the world in your "virtual classes."
This leads to the culturally-unifying force of the Internet. You wish to buy authentic Navajo jewelry from the Navajos themselves? You used to have to go to Arizona; now you can go online. I once tried to buy a product made in a city I was visiting. The woman at the counter told me I would be better off ordering on the Internet! Improbably, the language of the Internet is now known everywhere. It is a cultural commonality, in a homogenous world.
Today we have more choices than ever before, in a world brought together by these choices.
Solving Our Problems: Let’s Go "Multi"
Perhaps you’ve heard the old joke that goes: There are two types of people in the world, those who divide people into two types and those that don’t. One of the smartest people ever, Steven J. Gould, wrote about people’s disturbing characteristic of dividing things into two’s. That makes it easier to say that someone is for us or against us. This dualism adds to our dueling.
It also prevents us from seeing solutions to our problems. In local school districts, it’s either whole language or phonics (in reality, just about any reading program has both). In politics it’s liberal versus conservative. In Washington, DC politics, it’s black versus white. In the Bible belt, one finds Christians versus anyone who isn’t.
The radio bands are cleanly divided into liberal and conservative camps, and ratings depend on one side demonizing the other. The country isn’t served by this. When pressed on his liberal credentials, then-President Clinton said, "That dog won’t hunt anymore." Like him or hate him, his effort to blur the distinction might have merit.
Around the Internet there is a campaign to paint the world as a coming battleground. The Muslims are coming and coming fast! Soon they will take over Europe, then "Islamify" the US. Then won’t Christians who ignored all the signs be sorry!
In matters of race, we have issues, but we show progress. The quiet progress comes from interracial marriages and mixed race neighborhoods. Moreover, it comes from mixed race people. Tiger Woods signaled, by his notoriety, a change in our concept of race. Black/white distinctions are being blurred by the idea of multi-racial.
Our true selves as Americans show up not as blots of black, white and other, but as a mix. If Tiger by virtue of his parentage is cool, having a mixed-race president is way cool.
Religious distinctions, products of our minds and not physical characteristics, should be easily bridgeable. But we insist on exclusivity. Maybe it’s time for "make it cool" to be multi-religious. Mike Mansfield in his book The Japanese Mind describes how the Japanese can, with no internal contradictions and no social discomfort, be of several beliefs. They may be Christian, Buddhist, and Shinto at the same time, choosing rituals from each, as they deem fit.
And why not? Why can’t I choose a theology drawing on the Wisdom of Solomon and David, the meditative awareness of the Buddha, the poetry of the Quran, and the humility of Jesus? Religion at its best creates community, and our diverse society is rich in the wisdom of the ages.
Yet we feel we must choose one and only one.
I know someone whose wife is a Muslim Moroccan who followed her white, Christian husband to the U.S. from Spain. She believes in celebrating everyone’s holidays. She enjoys St Patrick’s Day with the relish of the Irish, Christmas with the sense of joy experienced by Christians, and Eid with the reverence of her own faith.
But that we all could embrace such an outlook. But we seem stuck in our dualist nature. Pro-Con. Go-No-Go. We argue to argue. We can, however, be more than the residue of our little philosophical encampments.
I admit there are limitations. One cannot, for example, be both a Red Sox and Yankee fan. That would be silly.
It also prevents us from seeing solutions to our problems. In local school districts, it’s either whole language or phonics (in reality, just about any reading program has both). In politics it’s liberal versus conservative. In Washington, DC politics, it’s black versus white. In the Bible belt, one finds Christians versus anyone who isn’t.
The radio bands are cleanly divided into liberal and conservative camps, and ratings depend on one side demonizing the other. The country isn’t served by this. When pressed on his liberal credentials, then-President Clinton said, "That dog won’t hunt anymore." Like him or hate him, his effort to blur the distinction might have merit.
Around the Internet there is a campaign to paint the world as a coming battleground. The Muslims are coming and coming fast! Soon they will take over Europe, then "Islamify" the US. Then won’t Christians who ignored all the signs be sorry!
In matters of race, we have issues, but we show progress. The quiet progress comes from interracial marriages and mixed race neighborhoods. Moreover, it comes from mixed race people. Tiger Woods signaled, by his notoriety, a change in our concept of race. Black/white distinctions are being blurred by the idea of multi-racial.
Our true selves as Americans show up not as blots of black, white and other, but as a mix. If Tiger by virtue of his parentage is cool, having a mixed-race president is way cool.
Religious distinctions, products of our minds and not physical characteristics, should be easily bridgeable. But we insist on exclusivity. Maybe it’s time for "make it cool" to be multi-religious. Mike Mansfield in his book The Japanese Mind describes how the Japanese can, with no internal contradictions and no social discomfort, be of several beliefs. They may be Christian, Buddhist, and Shinto at the same time, choosing rituals from each, as they deem fit.
And why not? Why can’t I choose a theology drawing on the Wisdom of Solomon and David, the meditative awareness of the Buddha, the poetry of the Quran, and the humility of Jesus? Religion at its best creates community, and our diverse society is rich in the wisdom of the ages.
Yet we feel we must choose one and only one.
I know someone whose wife is a Muslim Moroccan who followed her white, Christian husband to the U.S. from Spain. She believes in celebrating everyone’s holidays. She enjoys St Patrick’s Day with the relish of the Irish, Christmas with the sense of joy experienced by Christians, and Eid with the reverence of her own faith.
But that we all could embrace such an outlook. But we seem stuck in our dualist nature. Pro-Con. Go-No-Go. We argue to argue. We can, however, be more than the residue of our little philosophical encampments.
I admit there are limitations. One cannot, for example, be both a Red Sox and Yankee fan. That would be silly.
Lions for Lambs -- Too Preachy But On-Point
I can understand why Lions for Lambs, Robert Redford’s recent movie, received mixed reviews; in fact, I can completely understand why many people would hate it. It is preachy, very preachy. About a third of the movie shows Tom Cruise’s character (a Republican senator) preaching at Meryl Streep’s character (a veteran reporter) in support of the administration’s war on terror, while the reporter in turn preaches to the senator about the mistaken war in Iraq. In the process, they preach at each other about their complicity in America’s failures.
That’s already a lot of preaching.
But here is the genius of the movie: it questions whether the political debates in government and academia have any meaning at all. The sympathetic heroes of the movie are two young men who tire of the arguments and choose action, to wit, going to Afghanistan to fight for their country. They end up in mortal danger as a result of political decisions that are being debated in offices and hallways a long way away.
The movie itself has four main settings. The first is the office of the senator. In the second, a university professor’s office, Robert Redford’s character debates a promising but disengaged student about his role in life. In the third setting, the reporter is arguing in her editor’s office about the role of the press. The fourth is a snowy mountain ridge in Afghanistan.
The first Great Debate is between the senator and reporter. Both are consummate insiders. The senator is a key player in a new aggressive military strategy in Afghanistan, with implications for Iraq, Iran, and the entire Near East. The reporter’s first reporting job concerned Vietnam, and her liberal sensibilities -- anti-Republican and anti-war -- come through loud and clear. After running through the well-worn arguments for and against military action in Asia, the two end up challenging each other over who is using who in the relationship between media and government. The reporter takes the argument back to her editor and it takes on a different slant: what is the relationship between the corporate world and "real" news?
The more accessible argument is between the professor and the student. The professor is a Vietnam vet turned protester, who became a professor. He thought that he could use his mind, his words, and his professorial credentials to change the world. He failed. He resigned himself to a different mission: to single out a few exceptional students and push them toward greatness.
Now, those of us who teach the social sciences can be forgiven, I think, for considering the professor something other than a failure. We teach about history and geography and politics, but these are things that don’t necessarily reach most kids, but for good reason. They do not have a frame of reference for understanding the vital importance of these subjects. But as they grow up, they will use what we teach -- though probably without awareness -- as they connect the mental dots and make sense of the world.
The student opposite Redford’s professor became a cynic, figuring at a young age that certain elites make the decisions, and that even entering those elites is corrupting. So make some money, live the good life, and wash your hands of the decisions made in the halls of power.
This brings me to Afghanistan. Two soldiers were in the professor’s class. They chose action, they chose to do something. They believed that serving their country gave them credibility as agents of change that academia did not. The professor tried to dissuade them, but they joined the Army, as Special Forces soldiers. This put them in grave danger, and this tied them to the other debates.
Should the student live the good life or should they risk being pinned down by the Taliban in an icy gorge in the Hindu Kush? How much does it matter if the senator’s military plan is the right one? Does it diminish the soldiers’ nobility and exonerate the professor and student who choose a battlefield of words in a cushy college setting? If the soldiers die, is the reporter to blame for playing the insiders’ games instead of sounding the alarm? Does the path of action turn the soldiers into pathetic pawns in a game played for the benefit of distant powers? Or are they the only real players and the pathetic ones are the suits who send our hopes into the snowy skies over a shadowy and barren country?
Maybe the world is just too complicated for regular folks, and the noble life of action is the morally correct one. Maybe the debates of wonks in Washington or New York no longer connect to the real world.
That’s already a lot of preaching.
But here is the genius of the movie: it questions whether the political debates in government and academia have any meaning at all. The sympathetic heroes of the movie are two young men who tire of the arguments and choose action, to wit, going to Afghanistan to fight for their country. They end up in mortal danger as a result of political decisions that are being debated in offices and hallways a long way away.
The movie itself has four main settings. The first is the office of the senator. In the second, a university professor’s office, Robert Redford’s character debates a promising but disengaged student about his role in life. In the third setting, the reporter is arguing in her editor’s office about the role of the press. The fourth is a snowy mountain ridge in Afghanistan.
The first Great Debate is between the senator and reporter. Both are consummate insiders. The senator is a key player in a new aggressive military strategy in Afghanistan, with implications for Iraq, Iran, and the entire Near East. The reporter’s first reporting job concerned Vietnam, and her liberal sensibilities -- anti-Republican and anti-war -- come through loud and clear. After running through the well-worn arguments for and against military action in Asia, the two end up challenging each other over who is using who in the relationship between media and government. The reporter takes the argument back to her editor and it takes on a different slant: what is the relationship between the corporate world and "real" news?
The more accessible argument is between the professor and the student. The professor is a Vietnam vet turned protester, who became a professor. He thought that he could use his mind, his words, and his professorial credentials to change the world. He failed. He resigned himself to a different mission: to single out a few exceptional students and push them toward greatness.
Now, those of us who teach the social sciences can be forgiven, I think, for considering the professor something other than a failure. We teach about history and geography and politics, but these are things that don’t necessarily reach most kids, but for good reason. They do not have a frame of reference for understanding the vital importance of these subjects. But as they grow up, they will use what we teach -- though probably without awareness -- as they connect the mental dots and make sense of the world.
The student opposite Redford’s professor became a cynic, figuring at a young age that certain elites make the decisions, and that even entering those elites is corrupting. So make some money, live the good life, and wash your hands of the decisions made in the halls of power.
This brings me to Afghanistan. Two soldiers were in the professor’s class. They chose action, they chose to do something. They believed that serving their country gave them credibility as agents of change that academia did not. The professor tried to dissuade them, but they joined the Army, as Special Forces soldiers. This put them in grave danger, and this tied them to the other debates.
Should the student live the good life or should they risk being pinned down by the Taliban in an icy gorge in the Hindu Kush? How much does it matter if the senator’s military plan is the right one? Does it diminish the soldiers’ nobility and exonerate the professor and student who choose a battlefield of words in a cushy college setting? If the soldiers die, is the reporter to blame for playing the insiders’ games instead of sounding the alarm? Does the path of action turn the soldiers into pathetic pawns in a game played for the benefit of distant powers? Or are they the only real players and the pathetic ones are the suits who send our hopes into the snowy skies over a shadowy and barren country?
Maybe the world is just too complicated for regular folks, and the noble life of action is the morally correct one. Maybe the debates of wonks in Washington or New York no longer connect to the real world.
What if the world is too complicated for democracy?
Could 2009 be the beginning of the post-democracy era, complements of the current financial crisis?
Francis Fukayama once declared the "end of history," to wit, that the Great Questions of History have been answered, and that the consensus was that the best course for mankind was economic capitalism combined with a democratic government. There would be no more need for conflict; the case was closed in favor of modern Western values. The winning model included human rights, free and fair elections, and free markets.
Then came 9-11, which left no doubt that conflict remains, and that the consensus was not so consensual. There are people who object to modern notions of economics and government, and some become violent.
Asia would seem to be a case study proving that capitalism and democracy don’t need each other. Post-World War II Japan was democratic on paper, but a one-party state in reality. South Korea and Singapore followed suit. All three became wealthy. President Lee, the former leader of Singapore said that personal freedoms, which we value as key to our democracy, will lead to the downfall of the US. Such freedom unleashes individualism, which leads to decadence and instability. Meanwhile "soft authoritarian" countries on the Pacific Rim are sporting growing economies; their price is personal freedom, which Confucian societies value less than conformity and stability. China is following the same lead as the other "tiger economies," and this formerly-communist economy is increasing its GDP faster than any other nation, while its currently communist government swats away the flies of dissent. This model says that government will offer a stable environment for business; people are free to do as they will, within the confines of this ordered society, and everyone benefits. Except perhaps artists, oddballs, weirdoes, innovators, non-conformists, rebelling teenagers, and anyone else not in line with the grand scheme of things. And why defend them, at the expense of a rising prosperity?
So maybe we are too free, and our decadent lifestyles will cost us our position atop the hierarchy of nations. But the financial crisis of 2008-2009 brought another possibility: that the sheer complexity of economic life in the modern world is in the process of making democracy as we know it obsolete.
When the effects of the largest financial crisis in 3/4 of a century were becoming felt, who took the lead in addressing the issue? Appointed, not elected, bureaucrats. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, laid out the national response, leading our representatives in Congress to at first interfere with and then rubberstamp President Bush’s economic team’s plan. Meanwhile, we regular citizens tried to grasp both the causes and the enormity of the situation. Seven-hundred billion tax dollars to begin to fix this? Maybe a trillion-and-a-half when all is said and done? To paraphrase the late Senator Dirksen, a trillion here and a trillion there and now we’re talking real money.
The Chinese understand a system run by unelected bureaucrats. That is not what Americans expect out of government. But we have to deal with the complexities of re-regulating investment banks, controlling complex investment instruments, manipulating our $13 trillion economy, not to mention coordinating with central banks around the globe. It is possible, just possible, that the local politician we elected (wherever in the U.S. we live) as our congressperson because she/he did such a great job on the school board is not up to this?
In fact, the elected head of the executive branch was little visible at the forefront of the crisis, which added to the inclination of the nation to elect the opposition political party to the presidency. What bold actions are in store from our new elected officials? Well, the new president brought in experienced bureaucrats to fill his economic team. Other fundamental changes? No. There is a stimulus plan, pretty much like the one pushed by President Bush, only bigger.
Is this abrogation of the policy limelight by elected officials in favor of insiders a good thing or a bad thing? If the central bankers deem it necessary to bail out big corporations, increase unemployment benefits, and create jobs, why should we object? If the welfare of big business means the welfare of most of us, what is the problem? If we need fast action, why put our faith in the slow, political process of democracy?
Maybe we shouldn’t worry about the rights of those on the political and social fringe, because our idea of the fringe has changed over time. In his book Supercapitalism, Robert Reich, who is more optimistic than I am about the state of democracy today, looked back at the ‘50s as the Golden Years, saying that America offered high-paying blue collar jobs, corporate statesmanship, and a government-industry-labor partnership that maintained stability and prosperity; he noted that the cost was a rigid and stifling conformity. Peter Beinart recently wrote in Time that "The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order -- to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas..."
Maybe people need only the appearance of control over their own lives. We can debate personal rights, protest over the internet a military action we disagree with, and decide local issues. Are we ready to leave the meat of national/global policy-making, the part that controls how people make a living, to the experts? That is how China does it and they are expanding at 8% a year.
Francis Fukayama once declared the "end of history," to wit, that the Great Questions of History have been answered, and that the consensus was that the best course for mankind was economic capitalism combined with a democratic government. There would be no more need for conflict; the case was closed in favor of modern Western values. The winning model included human rights, free and fair elections, and free markets.
Then came 9-11, which left no doubt that conflict remains, and that the consensus was not so consensual. There are people who object to modern notions of economics and government, and some become violent.
Asia would seem to be a case study proving that capitalism and democracy don’t need each other. Post-World War II Japan was democratic on paper, but a one-party state in reality. South Korea and Singapore followed suit. All three became wealthy. President Lee, the former leader of Singapore said that personal freedoms, which we value as key to our democracy, will lead to the downfall of the US. Such freedom unleashes individualism, which leads to decadence and instability. Meanwhile "soft authoritarian" countries on the Pacific Rim are sporting growing economies; their price is personal freedom, which Confucian societies value less than conformity and stability. China is following the same lead as the other "tiger economies," and this formerly-communist economy is increasing its GDP faster than any other nation, while its currently communist government swats away the flies of dissent. This model says that government will offer a stable environment for business; people are free to do as they will, within the confines of this ordered society, and everyone benefits. Except perhaps artists, oddballs, weirdoes, innovators, non-conformists, rebelling teenagers, and anyone else not in line with the grand scheme of things. And why defend them, at the expense of a rising prosperity?
So maybe we are too free, and our decadent lifestyles will cost us our position atop the hierarchy of nations. But the financial crisis of 2008-2009 brought another possibility: that the sheer complexity of economic life in the modern world is in the process of making democracy as we know it obsolete.
When the effects of the largest financial crisis in 3/4 of a century were becoming felt, who took the lead in addressing the issue? Appointed, not elected, bureaucrats. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, laid out the national response, leading our representatives in Congress to at first interfere with and then rubberstamp President Bush’s economic team’s plan. Meanwhile, we regular citizens tried to grasp both the causes and the enormity of the situation. Seven-hundred billion tax dollars to begin to fix this? Maybe a trillion-and-a-half when all is said and done? To paraphrase the late Senator Dirksen, a trillion here and a trillion there and now we’re talking real money.
The Chinese understand a system run by unelected bureaucrats. That is not what Americans expect out of government. But we have to deal with the complexities of re-regulating investment banks, controlling complex investment instruments, manipulating our $13 trillion economy, not to mention coordinating with central banks around the globe. It is possible, just possible, that the local politician we elected (wherever in the U.S. we live) as our congressperson because she/he did such a great job on the school board is not up to this?
In fact, the elected head of the executive branch was little visible at the forefront of the crisis, which added to the inclination of the nation to elect the opposition political party to the presidency. What bold actions are in store from our new elected officials? Well, the new president brought in experienced bureaucrats to fill his economic team. Other fundamental changes? No. There is a stimulus plan, pretty much like the one pushed by President Bush, only bigger.
Is this abrogation of the policy limelight by elected officials in favor of insiders a good thing or a bad thing? If the central bankers deem it necessary to bail out big corporations, increase unemployment benefits, and create jobs, why should we object? If the welfare of big business means the welfare of most of us, what is the problem? If we need fast action, why put our faith in the slow, political process of democracy?
Maybe we shouldn’t worry about the rights of those on the political and social fringe, because our idea of the fringe has changed over time. In his book Supercapitalism, Robert Reich, who is more optimistic than I am about the state of democracy today, looked back at the ‘50s as the Golden Years, saying that America offered high-paying blue collar jobs, corporate statesmanship, and a government-industry-labor partnership that maintained stability and prosperity; he noted that the cost was a rigid and stifling conformity. Peter Beinart recently wrote in Time that "The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order -- to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas..."
Maybe people need only the appearance of control over their own lives. We can debate personal rights, protest over the internet a military action we disagree with, and decide local issues. Are we ready to leave the meat of national/global policy-making, the part that controls how people make a living, to the experts? That is how China does it and they are expanding at 8% a year.
We Don’t Need Censorship; We Just Need Adults To Be In Charge
The government has no business censoring books, music, or art. But that does not mean we must allow ourselves to be subjected to depravity. Freedom is not a one-way street, as in anyone is free to perpetually offend everyone else. I am a civil libertarian; I am against censorship. But I am not against knocking obscene and insulting music off the airwaves. Rappers and Hip-Hop "artists" are free to spout their misogynist, violent, sub-human noises. We are also free to drive it off the airwaves WITHOUT government censorship. A free society can, without censorship do something about protecting the public airwaves. And they need protecting! We just need adults to take charge.
Let’s take a typical hour in the car, listening to a pop music station, such as WPGC in Washington, DC. Fortunately most of the hour is commercials. Normally, you wouldn’t want that. But in this case it is a relief. Why? There was a song about birthday sex, a song about a large penis (The song production included Beyonce -- I had thought she had some class. I was wrong.), a song with masturbation references, another about sexual positions, and another about nudity and the joys of weed. This was all directed at kids, mostly sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth graders. We should not put up with it. But in today’s over-communicative world, it’s everywhere.
The key here is that for a free society, without government censorship, to work, there has to be something else: adults. For parents, that means turning off the radio. But we know that in this day and age, communications are a step ahead of parents. There are just too many sources, and the kids are too savvy -- they learn early on where the minimize button is.
Something should be done. This content is not OK. It is unhealthy. This isn’t prudishness talking here; it’s decency. In that hour of music there was not one -- not even one! -- positive message. It was filled with sexual content, but no hint of sexuality -- that passion, caring, gentleness, and other traits that separate human intimacy from the animal act. Basically, what rap and hip-hop talk about is what pigs do. That’s as elevated as it gets. And it goes downhill from there. It glorifies pimps and gangs. These are two things that in reality have always -- in EVERY case! -- been destructive. So to see teenage boys cheerfully talking about pimping, or teenage girls playfully trying to make gang signs is more than disturbing. It is a sign of sickness in a society that claims to care about kids.
A free society means we are going to have freak shows. It also means people are free to shake up the system and push envelopes. Freedom does not protect us from shocking behavior. But when Snoop Dog, on national TV, leads a woman on all fours around on a leash, we all know it is wrong. And moms and dads should work to stop it. In fact, anyone with morals should step up.
What can be done to foster a civil society? We are going to need adults in positions of responsibility. Adults would’ve said, "No!" to Snoop Dog and pulled the plug. Adults would’ve said, "We care about kids and we are not going to allow this music (like the hour I described) on the airwaves."
In a society that needs more civility and not less, adults are going to have to act. Not under government coercion, but because they are adults. With the incredible choices we have -- local music, world music, all styles and types, there is no call for adults to choose the type of airwave pollution with NO value. We aren’t talking censorship; we as adults have the power to choose from the myriad exciting, progressive, envelope-pushing musical expressions that are out there. Hear that, radio execs? You can lead the way and it won’t cost a thing.
Let’s take a typical hour in the car, listening to a pop music station, such as WPGC in Washington, DC. Fortunately most of the hour is commercials. Normally, you wouldn’t want that. But in this case it is a relief. Why? There was a song about birthday sex, a song about a large penis (The song production included Beyonce -- I had thought she had some class. I was wrong.), a song with masturbation references, another about sexual positions, and another about nudity and the joys of weed. This was all directed at kids, mostly sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth graders. We should not put up with it. But in today’s over-communicative world, it’s everywhere.
The key here is that for a free society, without government censorship, to work, there has to be something else: adults. For parents, that means turning off the radio. But we know that in this day and age, communications are a step ahead of parents. There are just too many sources, and the kids are too savvy -- they learn early on where the minimize button is.
Something should be done. This content is not OK. It is unhealthy. This isn’t prudishness talking here; it’s decency. In that hour of music there was not one -- not even one! -- positive message. It was filled with sexual content, but no hint of sexuality -- that passion, caring, gentleness, and other traits that separate human intimacy from the animal act. Basically, what rap and hip-hop talk about is what pigs do. That’s as elevated as it gets. And it goes downhill from there. It glorifies pimps and gangs. These are two things that in reality have always -- in EVERY case! -- been destructive. So to see teenage boys cheerfully talking about pimping, or teenage girls playfully trying to make gang signs is more than disturbing. It is a sign of sickness in a society that claims to care about kids.
A free society means we are going to have freak shows. It also means people are free to shake up the system and push envelopes. Freedom does not protect us from shocking behavior. But when Snoop Dog, on national TV, leads a woman on all fours around on a leash, we all know it is wrong. And moms and dads should work to stop it. In fact, anyone with morals should step up.
What can be done to foster a civil society? We are going to need adults in positions of responsibility. Adults would’ve said, "No!" to Snoop Dog and pulled the plug. Adults would’ve said, "We care about kids and we are not going to allow this music (like the hour I described) on the airwaves."
In a society that needs more civility and not less, adults are going to have to act. Not under government coercion, but because they are adults. With the incredible choices we have -- local music, world music, all styles and types, there is no call for adults to choose the type of airwave pollution with NO value. We aren’t talking censorship; we as adults have the power to choose from the myriad exciting, progressive, envelope-pushing musical expressions that are out there. Hear that, radio execs? You can lead the way and it won’t cost a thing.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
About A Civil Disagreement Blog
A Civil Disagreement Blog is sponsored by A Civil Disagreement. Its purpose is to provide a civilized forum for users to discuss national & international politics and social issues. The information can be anything related to politics or society and it is meant for everyone. We encourage a lively discussion though we insist that any disagreements remain civilized. Please keep it clean. The editorial staff reserves the right to remove, or edit, any posts they feel are inappropriate for this community. The editorial staff also reserves the right to correct the spelling and/or grammar for any post on the blog. If anyone reads what they interpret as an inappropriate post, please send an email to customer-service@acivildisagreement.com immediately.
This blog is meant for entertainment purposes only. A Civil Disagreement Blog and its editors are not responsible for the safety or effectiveness of any information, or claims made, within a post. It is the total responsibility of the reader to do his/her homework with regard to any information contained within a post. It is also the total responsibility of the reader to understand that all posts are solely the opinion of the author and it is the reader's responsibility to ensure all information is correct and accurate before they use the information for any purpose.
At A Civil Disagreement, we believe there’s something missing - a place where regular Americans can go to contribute well-thought-out opinions on politics and today's social issues. Our mission is to provide a respectful and thoughtful forum for different voices - liberal, conservative and alternative views - on a new political question each month. We hope you enjoy politics from this vantage point. We hope that this is a testament to the idea that WE THE PEOPLE have something of value to add, and that political thought is not the monopoly of politicians and professional political operatives.
This blog is meant for entertainment purposes only. A Civil Disagreement Blog and its editors are not responsible for the safety or effectiveness of any information, or claims made, within a post. It is the total responsibility of the reader to do his/her homework with regard to any information contained within a post. It is also the total responsibility of the reader to understand that all posts are solely the opinion of the author and it is the reader's responsibility to ensure all information is correct and accurate before they use the information for any purpose.
At A Civil Disagreement, we believe there’s something missing - a place where regular Americans can go to contribute well-thought-out opinions on politics and today's social issues. Our mission is to provide a respectful and thoughtful forum for different voices - liberal, conservative and alternative views - on a new political question each month. We hope you enjoy politics from this vantage point. We hope that this is a testament to the idea that WE THE PEOPLE have something of value to add, and that political thought is not the monopoly of politicians and professional political operatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
