Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Friday, October 26, 2012

The GOP and Mitt

I recently read an interview with Gloria Steinem, and while talking about the partisanship shown over the Lilly Ledbetter Act, she made some interesting assertions about the Republican party:

So I always feel like I have to apologize to my friends who are Republicans because they've basically lost their party. Ronald Reagan couldn't get nominated today because he was supportive of immigrant rights. Barry Goldwater was pro-choice. George H.W. Bush supported Planned Parenthood. No previous Republican except for George W. Bush would be acceptable to the people who now run the GOP. They are not Republicans. They are the American version of the Taliban.
Maybe that seems a bit over the top, but she goes on to talk about what the interviewer refers to as "a marriage of convenience with the religious right and powerful moneyed interests":

Like the Koch brothers. They've taken over one of the two great parties. This causes people to wrongly think that the country is equally divided but if we look at public opinion polls, it isn't. So, I can't think of anything more crucial than real Republicans taking back the GOP. [...] I think feminists and progressive Democrats err when they say to Republican women, "How can you be a Republican?" Nobody responds to that. But if you say "Look, you didn't leave your party. The party left you. Let's just look at the issues and see what they are and forget about party labels and vote for ourselves." I think people would really respond.
This isn't a new idea. There were Republicans (and/or former Republicans) saying the same thing back at least as far as the Dubya administration. I suspect that John McCain was a willing victim of this, because the McCain who ran in 2008 seemed to have moved quite a bit further to the right than the guy who ran in 2000. A lot of independents and even some Democrats liked the 2000-era McCain, but he was a different guy 8 years later. It seems like he ran as his real self in 2000 and jettisoned quite a bit of his principles in order to follow the Bush model for getting elected.

I'm trying to decide if Mitt Romney isn't going down the same road. Everybody knows how far he's moved politically from the time he was governor of Massachusetts 'til now (at least I hope they do). He's "flip-flopped" more than John Kerry ever did. But with Romney, I have to wonder if it wasn't so much that he changed his values to win over the Republican base as that he never had strong political convictions in the first place. Was he more moderate from 2003-2007 because that's what he believed or because that's what he needed to appear to believe in order to be elected as a Republican in Massachusetts? Considering the shameless pandering and Etch-a-Sketch campaign he's run, it seems more likely to believe that he'll simply say anything in order to be elected.

The crazy thing, the awful thing, is that it just might work. All this seems so self-evident, but he's running even with Obama. Does that say something important about Obama? Does that say something important about our country?

Monday, July 4, 2011

Patriotism, etc.

The 4th of July holiday in America seems rooted in ideas of "God and country," and that same soil is where I put down my own roots and started to grow. Although I gather that he hated every minute of it, my father served in the military, and so did many of the adult men that I respected most when I was growing up. I proudly wore an American flag lapel pin whenever I had a lapel, proudly raised the flag at my school for a year while a cub scout, proudly sang the Star Spangled Banner whenever it was being played, and proudly won an American Legion essay contest when I was in high school with a sincere speech that I wrote--and later read at a Memorial Day parade--praising America and the flag and patriotism.

And yet, in the meantime, my ideas about patriotism have changed radically, as I've grown beyond my roots and branched out. Really, I have a hard time calling myself patriotic anymore--and certainly most "traditional patriots" might not call me so. Allow me to explain.

History teaches us several lessons about patriotism. On the on hand, there's the standard lesson of the importance of being willing to die for one's country and what all the great patriots of the past have done. Honoring our history, our ideals, our own sense of our country's greatness. We know that story well, I think.

Our concept of patriotism derives almost entirely from a movement which really gained speed in the 19th century: the idea of nationalism. And history clearly shows us that nationalism accomplished roughly two things: the unification of countries like Germany and Italy that hadn't been unified before, and strong feelings of loyalty to the idea of one's "nation." Which, of course, made people more willing to kill and die for their countries, leading to the killing fields of WWI and perhaps even more so to WWII. You want to see flag waving? Check out Nazi Germany or fascist Italy. Most of the countries of western Europe that I've traveled in feel a deep aversion now to this kind of flag waving, because they've seen where it leads. A British friend of mine visiting America was bemused and a bit uneasy by all of our flag waving on this side of the pond. As someone--it's hard to pin down just who--once said, "When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag and carrying a cross."

The danger of nationalism or patriotism is not in loyalty as much as it is in blind loyalty, the too-often-advocated "my country, right or wrong." And that's one of the things that become harder and harder about patriotism, that my country--despite all the rhetoric--has been wrong quite a bit more than we would like to acknowledge. There is another lesson of history.

Don't get me wrong: we've advocated high ideals since the earlist days of the republic. We've been all about freedom and equality. Kind of. Sort of. Except that we've never wholly lived up to those ideals.  For almost half of our history, we enslaved other human beings, even after all of our European peers had ended it. The rhetoric of accepting immigrants has always thinly concealed a good deal of racism and ethnic bias. Our country and its government has, since the beginning, favored the interests of the rich. That's not something new--indeed, it has been ever thus. And let us not forget sexism, which also puts the lie to our ideals.

Yet, we might say, history shows us a trajectory of progress. Don't we do better than we used to? Fair enough, but it's essential to remember that none of these things happened inevitably. Nowhere was it written that things had to get better, and in few cases did it come from the top down. If "we the people" had not fought to make things better, it's almost certain that they wouldn't have gotten better, because our leaders have consistently been the representatives more of the status quo than of a progressive, better future. To say this another way: things haven't gotten better in our country because of blind patriotism or "my country, right or wrong" attitudes. Things have gotten better because people were willing to question the state of things and work to change them. So it has been and so is it likely to be as long as our nation endures.

And always high in our consciousness on Independence Day are the men and now women who've served our country. Is there something noble in risking one's life for our country? I would say yes. However, because these citizens are risking themselves for the rest of us, we have a duty to work to ensure that their lives are risked only in military endeavors which actually further the interests of the nation and not simply those of some minority of our citizens. Far too often, the military actions of our country have been been dishonest and/or hypocritical. The instances in which our leaders have lied to us or manipulated us have been too many for a short book, much less for my little blog. The times that our leaders have initiated military operations which put our soldiers in harm's way and killed the citizens of other nations in causes directly against our ideas of freedom, equality, and democracy have been, sadly, numerous. These, too, are the lessons of history. We have overthrown democracies in favor of dictatorships in order to further the economic interests of our elites as well as to further dubious, vague goals of "security." The military actions in the middle east following 9/11 are only the latest in a long line of American actions in which the citizens of our free democracy have been deceived about the aims and objectives of the war. My country, right or wrong? That's an easy way to brush aside such questions--and an easy way to ensure we get more of the same.

For that matter, should we look at our democracy? Our "true/false" democracy where we can choose a Democrat or choose a Republican, but don't have any other real options? And let's not forget the whole system of the electoral college rather than  a more democratic, truly popular election. If real democracy is our goal--though it probably never has been--we could be doing a lot better.

And yet, I'm raising all of these points not to argue that America is a terrible place and not to argue that we don't also have a lot to be proud of as Americans. Our people are basically good-hearted and well-meaning. Our ideals of freedom and equality are noble ones. Even the execution of them haven't been terrible. When compared with the vast majority of all governments in the history of humanity, we have it pretty damn good here. Even compared to much of our contemporary world we're doing awfully well. But let's not go too far: we're not, in every way, "the best." And we're not--when measured against our own ideals--as great as we could be. And yet, there's the thing: we can be, but only if we are not complacent, only if we are not smugly self-satisfied with our country and blindly patriotic.

And this, to me, is true patriotism. Loving your country, respecting what it stands for, and being loyal to it, but ultimately being more loyal to the ideals than to the government (any government), more loyal to what is best about the country than simply to what is. True patriotism is being willing to make our country great, not quacking on and on about how great our country is, not excusing its failures or condemning those who criticize us.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

The Motto Lotto

As though there were nothing more important to be done, Representative Randy Forbes (R-Va), along with 64 co-sponsors, has introduced a resolution in the House to "reaffirm" the official motto of the United States as "In God We Trust" and encourage its display "in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions" (full text here). It has been our official motto only since 1956 when, during the Cold War, the U.S. wanted to distinguish ourselves from the godless Soviets. It's our official motto, but as mottoes go, it's pretty lousy.

Why? First because of the obvious way it marginalizes non-believers and polytheists who, believe it or not, can be good Americans. Besides which, we're not truly a nation "under God." We're a secular nation under secular laws with religious freedom. That's why we have so many believers--and so many different beliefs. If you want to see "One Nation Under God," go visit an Islamic nation under Shariah Law. I'd rather live in a country where I'm free to practice a religion (or no religion) with only the most basic constraints (we draw the line somewhere this side of human sacrifice, for instance).

If we're going to talk about a national motto, we should think about truth in advertising. If we're set on "In God We Trust," we might at least add a clause to it: "All other pay cash." That would allude to our capitalist ethos. Except, of course, that we're a nation of debtors, cash-optional. "Born to Spend" captures nicely the way that we've come to think of ourselves primarily as consumers. "Greed is Good" might work for us, or if the Republicans took complete control it could be "I got mine (good luck getting yours)." Maybe "Every Man for Himself." Perhaps my readers have some ideas of their own?

If we're dead set on "reaffirming" a national motto, we could do worse than to go back to Latin motto adopted in 1782 as part of the national seal: E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one." Doesn't that capture our ideal of who we are as a nation--a whole nation--better than "In God We Trust"?

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Who do we admire?

I saw the results of a recent poll indicating that the three most admired men in America are, in order, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Well, I thought, that's all sorts of interesting. It's interesting that it would be the three most recent presidents (we still admire politicians?). It's also interesting that, as much as they may be the three most admired Americans, I'd wager that there are quite a lot of people who have strongly negative views of each of those men. I wonder what it would look like if there was some kind of overall admiration index that takes into account both the positive and negative? Not incidental to all of this, the top three women were Hilary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Oprah (with Michelle Obama fourth). It's interesting that, again, we have polarizing political figures at the top.

I saw all this on the evening news (my mother is visiting, hence the trip in the wayback machine to the days of nightly news), so I should have figured right off that there's more to it. If we look deeper--going to the source, we see that Obama was #1 with 22%, followed by Bush with 5% and Clinton with 4%. Two points to make about that--Obama's place in the top spot was by a large margin... but it was still very much a minority opinion. Here's a surprise hidden deeper in the numbers: Obama got 46% of Democrats' votes, followed by Clinton and Nelson Mandela (then Jimmy Carter and the Dalai Lama); among Republicans, 11% said W, followed by 6% saying Obama. Yes, you read that right (behind him, Glen Beck tied Pope Benedict and they narrowly led Billy Graham, in case you were wondering). There's something astounding in that, no? Among independents, it was Obama (17%), Clinton (4%), Bush (3%), the Bill Gates and Billy Graham.

Obama's numbers were down from 2008 and 2009, but there's something interesting in those results (maybe he's not as hopeless in 2012 as many think?). Is it just that the President is still an admired man in America, no matter who he is? That the office is somehow inherently admirable in the minds of Americans generally? In Obama's first year, he was at 30%, while Bush in his first year was at 39% (and in his fourth was still at 23%. Is that the rea message here? Or does the meaning behind these numbers have to do with the fact that no one got even a quarter of the vote? And after Obama, it was fewer than 5%--is it just a symptom of how fractured our culture is, that we can't agree on who to admire? If so, it's not a new phenomenon: back even as far as Eisenhower, Presidents' numbers (at least in their first terms, which is what I have data on) are pretty consistent, never getting more than 1/3 to <2/5.

Hilary Clinton, it should be said, "has dominated... for most of the past two decades, earning 15 No. 1 rankings since her first appearance on the list in 1992." Her number this year was just 17%.

Oh, and I forgot one other message: you won't get depth from the evening news.