The Truth is Not the Same Without the Lies They Make Up

It's amazing the level of ignorant hysteria that can be manufactured against tepid attempts at health care reform. Every complaint raised against what reform will supposedly lead to applies much better to the system we actually have now than anything else. And I think for the Republican/conservative establishment, the opposition is not even driven as much by their usual protection of the rich and powerful as it is simply the cynical politics of trying to keep the Democrats at succeeding at something. I'm not sure whether that is worse or not, but it is sad.

And the sad thing is that single-payer is not even on the table! If we have to go through all this garbage, why not do it for single-payer? Honestly, there are no arguments that the opponents are holding back that we need to fear being brought out. They are already arguing that reform will lead to communist death-panels, so they are pretty much all-in. I've been arguing for single-payer health insurance for a long time, and it is tiring. I've come to the conclusion that there is no point to argue it anymore really. Just point out that we could have it, and that's it. It is insanity not to do it. There is no drawback moving to single-payer from the current state of things. There aren't even sane arguments to be made against it. So what is the point in arguing with insanity?

Sometimes I wonder what these debates must look like to people living with functioning health care systems (i.e. the rest of the world, and some of the third world). I think it must be like watching politicians in Bangladesh or somewhere arguing over whether it is really such a good idea to put in indoor plumbing.

Some Trust In Chariots

"Courage has never been known to be a matter of muscle; it is a matter of the heart. The toughest muscle has been known to tremble before an imaginary fear. It was the heart that set the muscle trembling."--Gandhi

My Trust Is In You, War

Who do Americans trust? Pretty much no one, except the military, which is now by far the most trusted institution in the United States, with 52% of Americans expressing a "great deal" of confidence in it. We live in a time when the government, the press, religion, even science are thought to be highly suspect, and yet the military is considered the guiding light through it all. Is American ready for a military dictatorship?

Ok, hyperbolic dystopian visions aside, what is the explanation? After all, trust in the military has shot up from only 41% when George Bush took office, and two quagmires later trust is booming. It has fallen slightly since the peak in 2004, but still trust in the military has mostly survived the sour turn of public opinion on the Iraq War. On the one hand, it is a positive change from the Vietnam era, when the rank and file had to bear a significant amount of the negative reaction to the policies of their leaders. Clearly, George Bush and his administration are absorbing all of the public blame for the Iraq War.

On the other hand, the continuing level of trust given to the military despite an amazingly unpopular war demonstrates a dissonance in the American mind. While the war in Iraq has come to be seen as a disaster by the American public, the propaganda that was used to sell it, the exaltation of war as the ordering process of the world and the warrior as the paradigm of virtue, has succeeded brilliantly. What this means is that we won't learn any lesson from this war and will again be easily tricked into the next war.

For instance, why is David Petraeus, the general who pushed before Congress in 2007 the Bush administration's dubious argument that the surge was working great to reduce violence, held up by much of the press as a great and brilliant leader? Why, in the face of such an unpopular war, was John McCain able to run a major campaign theme on how much he loves David Petraeus, and Barack Obama could only respond that he too thinks Petraeus is really swell?

"Support our troops" and slogans like it have been used in many wars by many countries. The slogan has never meant "do what is in the best interest of the troops" or "keep our troops from harm" or "make sure the troops are well paid and provided for." It has always been used to bully people into supporting the military plans in which the troops are pawns. That it succeeds as propaganda is not surprising. People identify with soldiers. Most people have family and friends who are or have been in the military. They want to support them.

But in these modern wars when such a small portion of the population is fighting, soldiers take on mythic importance, serving by proxy the "patriotic" duty of everyone else. The social subtext is that one is only covered by this substitute service if one whole-heatedly "supports the troops," which is usually psychologically equivalent to supporting the war. But as public support for the war has dried up, "supporting the troops" has become a more nebulous concept.

What is clear, however, is that the continued popularity of this expression, and the trust given to the military, shows that Americans have come through the Bush years with as strong a predilection for hawkishness as ever, even if they oppose the current war. In some sense, Americans still want war, as they still believe in the myth of redemptive violence, they have simply lost the sense of purpose in the current war.

Any Way the Wind Blows

To clarify my thoughts from the previous post on the different methods of Republicans and Democrats: Republicans stick to their guns to see through their agenda. They are not afraid to take risks and be unpopular. Sometimes it backfires, like the political capital they lost in the government shutdown during the Clinton years, but it largely means that their agenda gets accomplished. Meanwhile, the Democrats are constantly sticking their fingers in the air to figure out what they should do. As a party, they are obsessed with maintaining a positive image in voters' minds (which they consequently fail to do). So in most of the Bush years many Democrats went along with horrible Republican policies in fear of looking bad for opposing a popular president. Contrast this with the Republicans: Obama is extremely popular right now, and yet not one Republican in the House voted for his stimulus bill. But the Democrats suffer from years of DLC dominance and are consumed with the problem of staying in power at all costs.

In essence, the Republicans use their rhetoric (including outright lying) to sell their agenda, while the Democrats craft an agenda to try to support their rhetoric. The Republicans know what they represent: big business interests and the conservative ideology in general. Meanwhile, the Democrats represent getting reelected, everything else is secondary. Even when Republicans pass legislation to curry favor with voters (such as the middle-class tax cuts under Bush), it serves not simply to make voters more willing to vote Republican, but as a means for pushing through their real policy goals (huge tax cuts for the rich). Democrats, meanwhile, quickly sacrifice their policy goals in the hope of gaining voters.

The Republican method clearly works a lot better, which is why the policies of this country have steadily been getting more and more conservative for the last three decades, even under Clinton. And it is why the Republicans, at times, seem invincible, such as early in this decade. The only problem is that their agenda has terrible consequences, which gets them eventually thrown out of office. If the Democrats could learn from the Republican method of doing things, but apply good policy, then they might have something.

Meet the New Bosses, Same as the Old Bosses

I think we can all agree, what America needs now are more cars.

After failing to pass an amendment to the stimulus bill to increase the paltry sum for transit*, the Senate has now passed an amendment give $11.5 billion in tax breaks to car buyers. That's more than the total amount being given to transit. This amendment would actually be better if they simply gave the money straight to the car companies with no strings attached, but instead we have the added effect of encouraging people to buy more cars rather than consider transit options and continue our unsustainable and destructive lifestyle.

Oh, and they are also considering an amendment to give tax breaks for buying a home. Yes, let's reinflate the bubble! I can't foresee any problem with that.

If the Democrats don't bring some actual change, they really can't expect all those new voters to be there for them in 2010 or 2012.

*Despite having 58 votes in favor. Why is it that the Democrats could do nothing to stop Bush's agenda when they were in the minority, but still yet the Republicans have all the power when they are in a much smaller minority? Probably because there were too many conservative Democrats willing to go along with whatever Bush was doing. Some of them ran for president.

The Long Journey

I've always been pretty cynical, especially when it comes to politics, which is an easy thing having lived almost all my life under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. But I'm really happy about Barack Obama becoming President of the United States. Many have derided the enthusiasm of the multitude over Obama's candidacy. They cried that Obama's supporters had too high expectations for what he would accomplish (probably true), that many supporters projected their own views on the candidate (also true), that all Obama offered were empty phrases with no specificities (an absurd charge: all candidates use slogans and rhetoric, and Obama's platform was easily accessible to anyone who cared to know it and repeated in countless stump speeches and his acceptance of the nomination). But most of all the feeling was that Obama was too hip to be serious: his supporters were mindless kids, who only liked him because he was young, or a fresh face, or black, or a good speaker, or had celebrity endorsers. They were not making a serious political decision, unlike those supporter [candidate of choice], who offered experience, and toughness, and, above all, seriousness.

Good riddance to all that. Now, I'm a realist. Barack Obama is not going to be the President I would dream of, but the President I would dream of would never become President. And I'm not too thrilled with the existence of the presidency in the first place. But I cautious hope that he'll be near as good as we can get at this time. Yes, that's a lot of qualifications, but after eight years of George W. Bush, it's a world of difference. I have hope that, at least, things will start to get a little bit better, instead of precipitously worse, and they have been for most of my life. Maybe he will bomb a few less people, maybe he will bring health care to more, maybe he will put a little more fairness back in the tax system, maybe he will help create slight reductions in energy consumption, maybe he will speed up the country's mass transit infrastructure, maybe he will protect a few more vital resources. No, it won't be enough to make me satisfied, but that doesn't mean these aren't life and death issues. And, while I don't buy in to all much of the hype that "Martin Luther King's dream is no realized" by virtue of one black man getting a really good job, it does mean that we have come a long way, and more importantly I think that Obama's accension will have very positive psychological affects on the nation and the world. Not an end, but a means toward an end.

So, I've been happy to hop on the train of mindless fandom and unseriousness. More than Obama himself I have believed in the much-derided Obama movement: young people getting engaged; old people working for change; millions being not merely passive voters but active participants in democracy by giving their time, money, and energy to try to make the world a better place. It has been an amazing year, full of moments of serendipity that have made my cynical and anti-nationalistic heart feel pangs of hope. Here are my favorite:

Obama, who had no chance in the election because he was black, wins Iowa, one of the whitest states of the Union, confounding the pundits' premature coronation of Clinton.


Obama's victory speech in South Carolina. "The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."


Obama is endorsed by Caroline and Ted Kennedy, who passes the torch to a new generation.


The "Yes We Can" video. "There has never been anything false about hope" gets me every time.


Obama comes to Seattle and overfills Key Arena on moment's notice. He even addresses the crowd that couldn't get in, before entering and giving his full stump speech. I got to shake his hand (but, no, I wasn't cured of any diseases). Obama goes on to a blowout win in Washington.


Hawaii's caucuses turn into a chaos of democratic enthusiasm, as record numbers turn out to support their kama'aina candidate.

Prairie View A&M students respond to attempts to disenfranchise them by marching down the highway to go vote.


Obama delivers his "A More Perfect Union" speech, demonstrating that he cannot be shackled by racial politics.


Obama draws 75,000 people in Portland.


Hundreds of thousands turn out in Germany, hoping for a new day from the hegemony.


I was at a rally in October with Maya Soetoro-Ng speaking. Sitting across from me was an old white man whose name tag said "Jim Crow". At that point I realized, if even Jim Crow has gone over for Obama, he can't lose.

Victory!


Jesse Jackson in tears. This said it all, really. This is how I'll always remember Jesse Jackson.


89 year-old living legend Pete Seeger plays Woody Guthrie's full version of "This Land Is Your Land."


Obama is inaugurated.




Ok, now I'll get back to criticizing the empire.

Culture of Peace

This is a repost from a previous blogging life in 2005. Unfortunately, it is still very relevant. Though I must admit to being a bit more hopeful in 2009. Pointless, destructive wars tend to cause at least a few more people to question the value of violence--at least for a little while.

The recent celebrations of Martin Luther King have caused me to reflect on a problem that grew in King’s mind during his ministry. Facing the violent opposition to the civil rights movement, King became convinced that America had a fundamental issue with violence that needed to be healed. This led him to speak out against the war in Vietnam, not merely opposing an unjust war but rebuking America’s way of looking at the world, it’s arrogant heroification of itself and other-ization of the world that fed into its violent nature. King predicted that if America did not confront its ethic of violence, which it would not if the church did not lead it, then it would continue to fight such wars for generations to come.

America’s ethic of violence is something the church must now confront. Simply attempting to withdrawal itself from the values of the country is not a feasible option, as our culture is so saturated in this violent ethic that it becomes part of the core psychological makeup of our congregants. For its own sake, the church must actively work to stem this cultural destruction. Furthermore, even if withdrawal were possible, to abandon America to its own violent ethic would be cruel and heartless, as the church holds the key to the alternative, that is the way of Jesus Christ, the way of love, humility, forgiveness and reconciliation. It is essential that the church led the way to building a culture of peace in our society that counteracts the current culture of violence.

The myth of redemptive violence is deeply ingrained in our self-identity as a people. We believe that it was through righteous violence that we freed ourselves from our oppressors and established a beacon of liberty from all humanity, a shining city on a hill, and it was through righteous violence in the last century that we saved the world from itself and made that liberty manifest. Unlike other people’s whose identities are derived from their descent from familial structures (tribes), ours is derived ultimately from histories of revolution and conquest. Even if we go further back than 1775 for the identity of our origin, we are left with the early European settlers who sought to “subdue the wilderness” by massacring and/or enslaving the native peoples. This is a precedent which would be followed for several hundred years. Even though we will no longer consciously affirm manifest destiny or the genocide of the native population, our identity as a people who brought order to a chaotic wilderness is fundamental to our self-conception, and it subconsciously affirms violence as a creative power.

This ethic of violence is both manifested and reinforced in all areas of our culture. In our civic life, worship of the military is at the center of our national being. The role of soldier is upheld as the highest vocation, the most virtuous calling. Our national anthem, which we dutifully sing before our competitive rituals, is a celebration of military resilience which recasts freedom and bravery as military concepts.

The civic spills into our political culture, which is centered on the worship of hyper-masculinity. Our political pundits talk about our needing a “strong” leader. During the previous presidential race, much debate was made not on which candidate would be most effective in reducing terrorism, but who would be “tough on terror.” The hyper-masculinity of our political climate is further demonstrated by the elections to governorships in the last few years of professional wrestler Jesse Ventura and action star/body builder Arnold Schwarzenegger, who became famous making movies where his character would shoot and/or blow up scores of enemies, both receiving office under the sentiment of the electorate that they were “tough enough to get the job done.”

The clearest examples of our ethic of violence are in our popular entertainment. Of course, this includes the wrestling world of Ventura and the action movie world of Schwarzenegger, as well as the video games our children play and the gruesome revenge films which play so well, but the ethic is by no means limited to these extreme genres but is underlying much of our popular culture. In fact, the victory over one’s enemies infests all of the stories we tell. We Americans love hero/villain stories, all of which end with the villain facing a harsh justice. Even in stories where violence is not present, the villain is ultimately shamed, embarrassed and defeated. Rarely do our stories feature forgiveness or reconciliation. In fact, we are disappointed on the rare occasion when a story ends in reconciliation rather than the destruction of the enemy. While our schools attempt to teach conflict resolution to our children, when they are so saturated in a culture that glorifies the defeat of one’s enemies, these lessons have little chance to stick. What then can possibly be done?

To such problems there are no easy solutions. Certainly, churches must work harder to train their members in conflict resolution, teaching them to value dialogue and forgiveness. On a larger scale, we must work much more to support just peacemaking practices, to teach the nation that war is not acceptable as a first (or only) option to world conflict. We should uphold the greater tale of American history that is left out of our national self-conception: the struggles of people overcoming adversity, being challenged and sustained by faith (instead of violence), working and suffering for justice, crossing divisions to come together in fellowship. Influencing a change in popular culture would certainly be the most difficult task, as the church has little influence in this area, and the market is a powerful force to counteract. Even if entertainment makers who cared about building a culture of peace were to try to focus more on reconciliation and forgiveness rather than vengeance, such stories would not likely appeal to enough people today, especially to those who most need to be influenced by them. Perhaps an easier route in the entertainment business would be to focus on the destructive nature of violence first, though this has been a problematic endeavor in the past (Three movies examining the destructive nature of violence immediately come to mind: Taxi Driver, Falling Down and Fight Club. However, all three of these movies had no clear distinction between critiquing the violence and glorifying it, which proved to be quite important in the case of Taxi Driver).

Perhaps first the simple thing we must do is to recognize the violent nature of ourselves and the opportunity for redemption offered by Jesus. As John Howard Yoder says in The Lamb’s War, “the answer is the cross.” Yoder follows Rene Girard to conclude that vengefulness is a primitive part of the human psyche and must be addressed as such. We cannot shame ourselves out of violence, for, as Yoder observes, shame only increases violent feelings. Instead, we must look to the love of Jesus, who was willing to suffer and die under our violence in order to break its power over us, that we might die to violence and be resurrected in love. This is the message of hope that we have to share, that we have been freed from the cycle of violence, that we are no longer slaves to vengefulness and spite and retribution.

“And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.”—MLK