Just a few days ago, we celebrated Independence Day, the anniversary of the United Colonies’ declaration of independence from Great Britain more than 225 years ago. We celebrated with fireworks, and perhaps still in a few places parades, with picnics and cookouts and trips to the beach and mountains.
And hopefully, somewhere along the line, we stopped for at least a few moments to give thanks for those who sacrificed much -- their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor,” as they themselves put it -- to make us free, and to keep us that way in the years since.
But just how independent are we, actually? The truthful answer would have to be, not very. And less so, it seems, with each passing year.
Since our shift, c. 1970, from net oil exporter to net oil importer, we have been deeply dependent on sources of supply outside our own country to feed our ravenous appetite for oil and petroleum products. Some of those sources of supply are in countries that tolerate us at best, actively dislike us at worst.
We are dependent on 15,000-mile supply lines from China to supply us with the cheap consumer goods on which we have come to rely so greatly. Combine that with the last bit of dependency, and it’s easy to see why higher fuel prices are a concern for more than just filling our own tanks.
We have allowed ourselves to become dependent on government handouts and so-called entitlements in many areas of life. And we have acceded to the breakdown of organizations -- civic organizations and social clubs like the Grange, the Jaycees, and many others -- which previously served as buffers between individuals, the government, and the forces of nature, circumstance, and economics that buffet all of us.
That last is a clue to the fact that absolute and complete independence is an impossibility, of course. We could not have achieved our independence from England without the support of France, during our Revolutionary War. And even the most ruggedly independent pioneer or settler depended upon his neighbors, his family, or sometimes the local Indian tribe, to survive.
Interdependence is one thing, if it’s mutual. It is, in fact, probably the most basic, most natural, most normal condition for human beings. But the current situation, marked by trade deficits, military adventurism, and mistrust of American motives, is untenable.
If nothing else, the United States used to be able to be reliably counted upon to export its values: values like freedom, democracy, tolerance, and the rule of law. We still talk a good line in those regards, but place our rhetoric next to the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless electronic surveillance, waterboarding, and other actions in Iraq and elsewhere, and it’s no wonder many people in many countries of the world still admire the ideals of America, but fear and mistrust our actions.
Our next President, whoever he may be, will have his work cut out for him mending fences abroad, and trying to rebuild our badly damaged reputation.
Between now and Independence Day, 2009, we need a national conversation on how we as a nation and as individuals can become more independent -- in fuel, food, consumer goods, and many other economic measures, and in our personal expectations -- while at the same time promoting healthy and reasonable inter dependence with our neighbors, both locally and internationally.
If we can accomplish this, whether by next Fourth of July or ten Fourths of July down the road, we will really have something to celebrate.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Column: Court strikes the right balance
Finally, at long last, the Supreme Court has confirmed what for many of us has always been self-evident: that sane, law-abiding citizens of the United States have an individual right, under the Second Amendment of the Constitution, to own guns for self-defense.
The Court was predictably divided on this decision, with the so-called “liberal” Justices opposed, and the more conservative ones in favor. Justice Kennedy, typically viewed as a moderate, voted with the majority to make it a 5-4 decision in favor of liberty, Constitutionality, and common sense.
Nonetheless this is not really, or at least exclusively, a liberal versus conservative issue. AP writer Mark Sherman accurately notes that the reaction broke less along party lines than along the divide between cities wracked with gun violence and rural areas where gun ownership is embedded in daily life.
This is the reality which partisan rhetoric has largely obscured: there is not a single “gun culture” in the United States. There are two. One of them is mostly an urban phenomenon: the “thug” or “gangsta” culture celebrated by gangsta rap and exemplified by the “Stop Snitchin’” DVDs put out by Baltimore’s gangs. For this culture, guns are about power obtained through violence, and wealth obtained the same way.
The second, and vastly larger, gun culture in the United States is often, but far from exclusively, rural. It reflects the estimated 43-55 million law-abiding gun owners -- only a fraction of whom are NRA members -- who own guns for hunting, shooting sports, and not least, personal safety. That includes defense against members of the first-mentioned gun culture.
Contrary to the views of at least one Presidential candidate, who seems to be doing some serious fence-sitting in view of the Court’s decision, members of the second-named gun culture are rarely bitter. In fact, they are typically optimistic, although sometimes frustrated by certain directions taken by this country’s ruling elite.
This second and much larger gun culture is peaceful, law-abiding, generally patriotic, and stresses personal responsibility. It views the Second Amendment as the “first freedom,” the right that, in the final analysis, guarantees all the others. It is, in other words, the culture that has remained in tune with the original intent of the Founders, now finally affirmed by the Supreme Court.
In making this ruling, the Court has struck the right balance. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted that nothing in the ruling should “cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” In other words, it is only sane and law-abiding citizens who have the right to bear arms, and even then, not everywhere.
He further noted the justices in the majority “are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and that the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.” This is hardly a return to a Wild West approach to problem-solving, as asserted by some fear-mongering anti-gun activists. If anything, statistics show the reverse: restricting gun ownership increases crime, as in Britain and Australia.
The right to keep and bear arms for a variety of purposes, including personal defense, is exactly that: a fundamental, individual right, on par with the right to speak freely, freely assemble, worship in accordance with conscience, and all the rest. It’s really rather sad that it’s taken this long, and required a Supreme Court decision, to affirm such a basic and self-evident truth.
The Court was predictably divided on this decision, with the so-called “liberal” Justices opposed, and the more conservative ones in favor. Justice Kennedy, typically viewed as a moderate, voted with the majority to make it a 5-4 decision in favor of liberty, Constitutionality, and common sense.
Nonetheless this is not really, or at least exclusively, a liberal versus conservative issue. AP writer Mark Sherman accurately notes that the reaction broke less along party lines than along the divide between cities wracked with gun violence and rural areas where gun ownership is embedded in daily life.
This is the reality which partisan rhetoric has largely obscured: there is not a single “gun culture” in the United States. There are two. One of them is mostly an urban phenomenon: the “thug” or “gangsta” culture celebrated by gangsta rap and exemplified by the “Stop Snitchin’” DVDs put out by Baltimore’s gangs. For this culture, guns are about power obtained through violence, and wealth obtained the same way.
The second, and vastly larger, gun culture in the United States is often, but far from exclusively, rural. It reflects the estimated 43-55 million law-abiding gun owners -- only a fraction of whom are NRA members -- who own guns for hunting, shooting sports, and not least, personal safety. That includes defense against members of the first-mentioned gun culture.
Contrary to the views of at least one Presidential candidate, who seems to be doing some serious fence-sitting in view of the Court’s decision, members of the second-named gun culture are rarely bitter. In fact, they are typically optimistic, although sometimes frustrated by certain directions taken by this country’s ruling elite.
This second and much larger gun culture is peaceful, law-abiding, generally patriotic, and stresses personal responsibility. It views the Second Amendment as the “first freedom,” the right that, in the final analysis, guarantees all the others. It is, in other words, the culture that has remained in tune with the original intent of the Founders, now finally affirmed by the Supreme Court.
In making this ruling, the Court has struck the right balance. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted that nothing in the ruling should “cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” In other words, it is only sane and law-abiding citizens who have the right to bear arms, and even then, not everywhere.
He further noted the justices in the majority “are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and that the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.” This is hardly a return to a Wild West approach to problem-solving, as asserted by some fear-mongering anti-gun activists. If anything, statistics show the reverse: restricting gun ownership increases crime, as in Britain and Australia.
The right to keep and bear arms for a variety of purposes, including personal defense, is exactly that: a fundamental, individual right, on par with the right to speak freely, freely assemble, worship in accordance with conscience, and all the rest. It’s really rather sad that it’s taken this long, and required a Supreme Court decision, to affirm such a basic and self-evident truth.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Remembering fallen heroes on Memorial Day
Yesterday we observed the national Memorial Day holiday. Observed by custom, over recent decades, on the last Monday of May, it yields a long weekend for the traditional (if unoffical) first weekend of summer. As such, it forms the backdrop for picnics, backyard barbecues, and trips to the beach, the lake, or the mountains.
All of this is well and good. The older I get, the shorter summer seems to become, and I am all for squeezing every ounce of gusto out of it that we can manage. I'm always up for a trip to the mountains, a session of grilling and partaking of potluck picnic fare, or exploring some waterfront location.
But it's important, I think, that we don't let these enjoyable observations of the beginning of summer obscure for us the deeper significance of Memorial Day, or Decoration Day as it was originally called. Though the precise date and location of its origin are unknown, it clearly dates back to the Civil War. As the website www.usmemorialday.org notes, it is "likely that… every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860's tapped into the general human need to honor our dead."
Memorial Day was officially first proclaimed by Union General John Logan, commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, and first observed on May 30, 1868. It is very much in keeping with the tenor of the day that, even at that early date, flowers were laid on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers alike.
The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York, in 1873. By 1890, again according to the website, it was recognized by all northern states, although perhaps understandably, the states of the former Confederacy resisted the trend, honoring their dead on separate days. World War One, however, brought the country together in many ways. One of those was making Memorial Day no longer about honoring the dead of the Civil War, but honoring all American servicemen (and later women) who had died fighting for their country.
The wearing of red poppies originated in the famous World War One poem, "In Flanders Fields." In 1915, Moina Mitchell was inspired by this to compose her own brief poem: "We cherish too, the Poppy red / That grows on fields where valor led, / It seems to signal to the skies / That blood of heroes never dies." She thus conceived the idea of wearing red poppies to honor those Americans fallen in battle.
At a time when more than 3,400 Americans have died in the fighting in Iraq, and hundreds more in Afghanistan, it is appropriate to pause amidst our understandable celebrations of the coming of summer to recall, for a moment, just why we commemorate this day. Westminster and some of the other municipalities of Carroll County are better at this than much of the country, it seems, honoring both the day and our fallen heroes with a parade and, often, further observances at the local cemetery.
Nonetheless I tend to agree with the views expressed on www.memorialday.com, that "Traditional observance of Memorial day has diminished over the years. Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day... What is needed is a full return to the original day of observance. Set aside one day out of the year for the nation to get together to remember, reflect and honor those who have given their all in service to their country."
How best to do this? Move the observation of Memorial Day back to its original date, May 30th, on whatever day that might fall. Making it an excuse for a 3-day vacation, some justly hold, undercuts the very meaning of the day, which is all about sacrifice and gratitude for that sacrifice. Without the valor and selflessness, even unto death, of those honored on this day, the U.S. would not be a nation, and neither we nor much of the rest of the world would enjoy the freedoms we so often take for granted.
In the words of General Logan, in his order proclaiming the day in 1868, "Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic." May we not forget. May we never forget. Tomorrow marks the traditional Memorial Day, May 30th. Let us truly, and gratefully, remember.
All of this is well and good. The older I get, the shorter summer seems to become, and I am all for squeezing every ounce of gusto out of it that we can manage. I'm always up for a trip to the mountains, a session of grilling and partaking of potluck picnic fare, or exploring some waterfront location.
But it's important, I think, that we don't let these enjoyable observations of the beginning of summer obscure for us the deeper significance of Memorial Day, or Decoration Day as it was originally called. Though the precise date and location of its origin are unknown, it clearly dates back to the Civil War. As the website www.usmemorialday.org notes, it is "likely that… every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860's tapped into the general human need to honor our dead."
Memorial Day was officially first proclaimed by Union General John Logan, commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, and first observed on May 30, 1868. It is very much in keeping with the tenor of the day that, even at that early date, flowers were laid on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers alike.
The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York, in 1873. By 1890, again according to the website, it was recognized by all northern states, although perhaps understandably, the states of the former Confederacy resisted the trend, honoring their dead on separate days. World War One, however, brought the country together in many ways. One of those was making Memorial Day no longer about honoring the dead of the Civil War, but honoring all American servicemen (and later women) who had died fighting for their country.
The wearing of red poppies originated in the famous World War One poem, "In Flanders Fields." In 1915, Moina Mitchell was inspired by this to compose her own brief poem: "We cherish too, the Poppy red / That grows on fields where valor led, / It seems to signal to the skies / That blood of heroes never dies." She thus conceived the idea of wearing red poppies to honor those Americans fallen in battle.
At a time when more than 3,400 Americans have died in the fighting in Iraq, and hundreds more in Afghanistan, it is appropriate to pause amidst our understandable celebrations of the coming of summer to recall, for a moment, just why we commemorate this day. Westminster and some of the other municipalities of Carroll County are better at this than much of the country, it seems, honoring both the day and our fallen heroes with a parade and, often, further observances at the local cemetery.
Nonetheless I tend to agree with the views expressed on www.memorialday.com, that "Traditional observance of Memorial day has diminished over the years. Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day... What is needed is a full return to the original day of observance. Set aside one day out of the year for the nation to get together to remember, reflect and honor those who have given their all in service to their country."
How best to do this? Move the observation of Memorial Day back to its original date, May 30th, on whatever day that might fall. Making it an excuse for a 3-day vacation, some justly hold, undercuts the very meaning of the day, which is all about sacrifice and gratitude for that sacrifice. Without the valor and selflessness, even unto death, of those honored on this day, the U.S. would not be a nation, and neither we nor much of the rest of the world would enjoy the freedoms we so often take for granted.
In the words of General Logan, in his order proclaiming the day in 1868, "Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic." May we not forget. May we never forget. Tomorrow marks the traditional Memorial Day, May 30th. Let us truly, and gratefully, remember.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Westminster City Council's "green" resolution falls short
A journey of a thousand miles, so goes the old saying, begins with a single step. However, I would add, someone who stops after that first step won't get far on the journey. The decision by the Westminster City Council to adopt a "Resolution on Climate Disrupting Pollution" may be viewed as an important first step in joining the battle against global climate change, but I hope it won't be the city of Westminister's last.
As a Times article on Monday, April 9th, pointed out, the Catoctin Chapter of the Sierra Club had asked the City Council to approve and sign the U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. The agreement, already signed by some 400 municipalities nationwide, is a pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012: the goal set in the much-maligned Kyoto Protocol. This is admittedly a challenge, but hardly an un-reachable one, as the number of cities signed on attests. Seven Maryland cities, including Sykesville and Baltimore, have already signed.
Instead, the Mayor and Council of Westminster decided to adopt what councilman Gregory Pecoraro described as "sort of a homegrown version of how we want to approach this."
As a general rule, I am all for homegrown, local approaches. However, there are times when local authorities need to band together to deal with problems and issues which are beyond what any of them can solve on their own, when the need for unified action transcends the importance of local autonomy. The crisis we as humans face due to global warming is one of those. Furthermore, the U.S. Mayors Agreement is not something being forced on us from above; it is a voluntary union of equals to accomplish something in our common interest.
Encouragingly, the same edition of the Times reported the formation in Mount Airy of a new “green” organization dedicated to "raising awareness about global warming, rising energy costs and other environmental issues.” Sometimes citizens catch on quicker than their elected leaders.
And there's little excuse for ignorance or apathy. The scope and urgency of the problem has been clearly articulated and reinforced by a whole series of recent articles in the Times. On April 6th, an AP article headlined “Experts say natural wonders at risk from global warming” elucidated threats to “natural treasures” from Australia's Great Barrier Reef to the Amazon rainforests due to climate change. Some of the damage may already be irreversible.
An article on Easter Sunday focused on mountaineers and ice climbers worldwide who are firsthand witnesses to "vanishing glaciers, melting ice routes, crumbling rock formations, and flood-prone lakes" as a result of rising temperatures. A report from Bangkok, Thailand, on Wednesday the 11th stated that continued warming could result in food shortages for 130 million people across Asia by 2050 and cause potentially catastrophic problems in Africa. And we think we have immigration problems now.
Yet still some people refuse to either admit that there's a problem, or take ownership of humanity's part in it. It's easier to say, "oh, it's just natural fluctuations" -- despite indications that without human input, the earth would now be in a slight cool-down -- or complain that the costs would be prohibitive. Ironically, doing nothing will likely prove even more costly, in the long run.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments is another group that gets it. According to a Capital News Service report, the Council passed a regional climate change initiative that will unite efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses in the National Capital Region. Maryland faces the largest impact from climate change in the region, according to the Council's Stuart Freudberg, due to the amount of Maryland's land adjoining the Chesapeake Bay.
So again, it is a good and important first step that Westminster's Mayor and City Council have passed a resolution to "work diligently to identify and implement such environmentally responsible practices as may be practical… with the goal of conserving energy and reducing the amount of global warming pollutants generated by City operations." But the Devil is in the details, and this provides few of them. In fact, "practical” provides copious wiggle room.
I hope -- and would strongly urge -- that the Council adopt the higher levels of focus, commitment, and accountability represented by the U.S. Mayors Protection Agreement. Doing so would not only provide specific goals and assistance in achieving them, but would send a signal that Westminster is proactive, forward-looking, and committed in facing one of the greatest challenges of the new century.
As a Times article on Monday, April 9th, pointed out, the Catoctin Chapter of the Sierra Club had asked the City Council to approve and sign the U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. The agreement, already signed by some 400 municipalities nationwide, is a pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012: the goal set in the much-maligned Kyoto Protocol. This is admittedly a challenge, but hardly an un-reachable one, as the number of cities signed on attests. Seven Maryland cities, including Sykesville and Baltimore, have already signed.
Instead, the Mayor and Council of Westminster decided to adopt what councilman Gregory Pecoraro described as "sort of a homegrown version of how we want to approach this."
As a general rule, I am all for homegrown, local approaches. However, there are times when local authorities need to band together to deal with problems and issues which are beyond what any of them can solve on their own, when the need for unified action transcends the importance of local autonomy. The crisis we as humans face due to global warming is one of those. Furthermore, the U.S. Mayors Agreement is not something being forced on us from above; it is a voluntary union of equals to accomplish something in our common interest.
Encouragingly, the same edition of the Times reported the formation in Mount Airy of a new “green” organization dedicated to "raising awareness about global warming, rising energy costs and other environmental issues.” Sometimes citizens catch on quicker than their elected leaders.
And there's little excuse for ignorance or apathy. The scope and urgency of the problem has been clearly articulated and reinforced by a whole series of recent articles in the Times. On April 6th, an AP article headlined “Experts say natural wonders at risk from global warming” elucidated threats to “natural treasures” from Australia's Great Barrier Reef to the Amazon rainforests due to climate change. Some of the damage may already be irreversible.
An article on Easter Sunday focused on mountaineers and ice climbers worldwide who are firsthand witnesses to "vanishing glaciers, melting ice routes, crumbling rock formations, and flood-prone lakes" as a result of rising temperatures. A report from Bangkok, Thailand, on Wednesday the 11th stated that continued warming could result in food shortages for 130 million people across Asia by 2050 and cause potentially catastrophic problems in Africa. And we think we have immigration problems now.
Yet still some people refuse to either admit that there's a problem, or take ownership of humanity's part in it. It's easier to say, "oh, it's just natural fluctuations" -- despite indications that without human input, the earth would now be in a slight cool-down -- or complain that the costs would be prohibitive. Ironically, doing nothing will likely prove even more costly, in the long run.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments is another group that gets it. According to a Capital News Service report, the Council passed a regional climate change initiative that will unite efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses in the National Capital Region. Maryland faces the largest impact from climate change in the region, according to the Council's Stuart Freudberg, due to the amount of Maryland's land adjoining the Chesapeake Bay.
So again, it is a good and important first step that Westminster's Mayor and City Council have passed a resolution to "work diligently to identify and implement such environmentally responsible practices as may be practical… with the goal of conserving energy and reducing the amount of global warming pollutants generated by City operations." But the Devil is in the details, and this provides few of them. In fact, "practical” provides copious wiggle room.
I hope -- and would strongly urge -- that the Council adopt the higher levels of focus, commitment, and accountability represented by the U.S. Mayors Protection Agreement. Doing so would not only provide specific goals and assistance in achieving them, but would send a signal that Westminster is proactive, forward-looking, and committed in facing one of the greatest challenges of the new century.
Friday, March 23, 2007
A frog in troubling waters
It has been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I agree with that assessment. A historical education allows one to detect patterns that are difficult or impossible to discern without that perspective. One of those is the effect of outside dangers and threats, real or imagined, on the development of government, and the transmutation of free societies into authoritarian ones.
This pattern can be detected as far back as ancient Sumeria, where the peaceful, pastoral rule of the archetypal shepherd-king, Dumuzi, gave way to the iron-fisted, brutal rule of the archetypal conqueror and law-giver, Gilgamesh. Similarly, outside threats led to the rise of the first kings in ancient Greece. Invasions or threats of invasions from the Celts, among others, brought ancient Rome from a Republic, to a Dictatorship, to an Empire, as a fearful people willingly agreed to their own subjugation by demagogues who claimed to be able to protect them.
In more recent years, trumped-up threats of attack by Communists and others led to the overthrow of the democratic Weimar Republic in Germany by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi henchmen. The pattern is clear: fear, whether justified or not, leads to autocracy and loss of freedom, freedom which is regained -- if at all -- only with great cost and difficulty.
In the United States, however, we have the example of Benjamin Franklin, widely credited with asserting that those who are willing to give up their freedom for a little security deserve neither freedom nor security. Other Founders expressed similar views. Is the United States in danger of becoming another Weimar Republic, rather than the free Republic of our Founders' vision? The signs are troubling.
A recent Justice Department audit recently revealed that the FBI systematically abused its powers to secretly obtain information on American citizens, ostensibly in the name of the war on terrorism. Eight federal prosecutors have been fired, apparently for resisting political pressure on their investigations. A new Homeland Security program called ADVISE will mine already collected data to gather still more information on U.S. citizens.
That's in addition to the sweeping provisions of the inaptly named USA Patriot Act, and various surveillance programs against American citizens, including electronic eavesdropping by the NSA. Some of these have supposedly been shut down or limited under Congressional oversight. But how limited? We don't really know. That information is secret. We're expected to trust the government, and accept their word on it.
Then there's the “Real ID” program, aimed at creating a de facto national identity card, beloved of all authoritarian states. "Papers, please!" used to be a cliche in old war movies. Now it may become a fact of our national life. Although not part of the current plan, modern technology would make it feasible to include a microchip allowing individual persons to be tracked by satellite.
Satellite tracking and GPS location are already part of the National Animal Identification System, which in the name of food security would effectively abolish private ownership of food animals, making all livestock part of a closely-monitored “national herd.” Recent E. coli scares have raised the spectre of similar federal control over vegetable production, too. And whoever controls the food, controls the populace.
More locally, there is the ever-growing number of red-light cameras, now reportedly to be joined by speed-enforcement cameras. Whatever happened to the old dictum that “only in a police state is the job of the police easy”?
For that matter, how often are books like Animal Farm, 1984, and Brave New World taught in schools, these days? I hope they are, but you don't hear too much about them. Most of what you hear is emphasis on math and science over history and the humanities, and standardized tests that emphasize recalling pieces of data over detailed analysis and thoughtful reflection. Hmmm, you don't suppose that's part of the pattern, too?
It is said that a frog who jumps into boiling water will immediately jump back out again, but a frog swimming in water which is gradually increasing in temperature will stay there until it is too late to avoid being cooked. I worry for our country, and the people of our country, lest we are becoming too much like that frog.
A recent Times editorial suggested that “a majority of Americans are opening their eyes and seeing how they have been duped.” I sincerely hope that's the case, and that we will, as that editorial suggested, “return to the day when America was truly the home of the free.” The alternative is deeply troubling.
This pattern can be detected as far back as ancient Sumeria, where the peaceful, pastoral rule of the archetypal shepherd-king, Dumuzi, gave way to the iron-fisted, brutal rule of the archetypal conqueror and law-giver, Gilgamesh. Similarly, outside threats led to the rise of the first kings in ancient Greece. Invasions or threats of invasions from the Celts, among others, brought ancient Rome from a Republic, to a Dictatorship, to an Empire, as a fearful people willingly agreed to their own subjugation by demagogues who claimed to be able to protect them.
In more recent years, trumped-up threats of attack by Communists and others led to the overthrow of the democratic Weimar Republic in Germany by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi henchmen. The pattern is clear: fear, whether justified or not, leads to autocracy and loss of freedom, freedom which is regained -- if at all -- only with great cost and difficulty.
In the United States, however, we have the example of Benjamin Franklin, widely credited with asserting that those who are willing to give up their freedom for a little security deserve neither freedom nor security. Other Founders expressed similar views. Is the United States in danger of becoming another Weimar Republic, rather than the free Republic of our Founders' vision? The signs are troubling.
A recent Justice Department audit recently revealed that the FBI systematically abused its powers to secretly obtain information on American citizens, ostensibly in the name of the war on terrorism. Eight federal prosecutors have been fired, apparently for resisting political pressure on their investigations. A new Homeland Security program called ADVISE will mine already collected data to gather still more information on U.S. citizens.
That's in addition to the sweeping provisions of the inaptly named USA Patriot Act, and various surveillance programs against American citizens, including electronic eavesdropping by the NSA. Some of these have supposedly been shut down or limited under Congressional oversight. But how limited? We don't really know. That information is secret. We're expected to trust the government, and accept their word on it.
Then there's the “Real ID” program, aimed at creating a de facto national identity card, beloved of all authoritarian states. "Papers, please!" used to be a cliche in old war movies. Now it may become a fact of our national life. Although not part of the current plan, modern technology would make it feasible to include a microchip allowing individual persons to be tracked by satellite.
Satellite tracking and GPS location are already part of the National Animal Identification System, which in the name of food security would effectively abolish private ownership of food animals, making all livestock part of a closely-monitored “national herd.” Recent E. coli scares have raised the spectre of similar federal control over vegetable production, too. And whoever controls the food, controls the populace.
More locally, there is the ever-growing number of red-light cameras, now reportedly to be joined by speed-enforcement cameras. Whatever happened to the old dictum that “only in a police state is the job of the police easy”?
For that matter, how often are books like Animal Farm, 1984, and Brave New World taught in schools, these days? I hope they are, but you don't hear too much about them. Most of what you hear is emphasis on math and science over history and the humanities, and standardized tests that emphasize recalling pieces of data over detailed analysis and thoughtful reflection. Hmmm, you don't suppose that's part of the pattern, too?
It is said that a frog who jumps into boiling water will immediately jump back out again, but a frog swimming in water which is gradually increasing in temperature will stay there until it is too late to avoid being cooked. I worry for our country, and the people of our country, lest we are becoming too much like that frog.
A recent Times editorial suggested that “a majority of Americans are opening their eyes and seeing how they have been duped.” I sincerely hope that's the case, and that we will, as that editorial suggested, “return to the day when America was truly the home of the free.” The alternative is deeply troubling.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Unintended consequences haunt U.S. actions
Okay, I admit it. I was wrong.
In the days leading up to the Iraq invasion, I questioned the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war, on the grounds that it would lead dozens of other countries around the world to preemptively invade their neighbors on a variety of flimsy pretexts. After all, if the great United States thinks it's morally justified to invade because it thinks someone might attack it, why shouldn't others?
This, however, did not happen. Unfortunately, however, what did happen, which I utterly failed to predict, is even worse. Countries around the world started making decisions, and conducting actions, out of fear that we might attack them preemptively.
Iran has been the loudest and most belligerent of those, but North Korea's efforts have been the most successful (read: frightening). Kim Jong Il's autocratic but impoverished family fiefdom has managed to "go nuclear," at least in a minor but worrying way. It has also done pretty well about developing long-range missiles that could, if they get the bugs ironed out, carry a North Korean nuclear warhead all the way to the West Coast of the United States.
Kim is a nut-case, granted. But his histrionic avowals that his nuclear program is only defensive in nature, to avert a U.S. attack, don't ring as hollow as they should, taken in the context of Iraq. Ditto Iran, and its pursuit of a "peaceful" nuclear program. Ditto Syria. Ditto, probably, half-a-dozen other countries that may be surreptitiously trying to create or acquire nukes: the fact that we attacked Iraq, which didn't have nuclear weapons, and did not attack North Korea, which does, is not lost on despotic regimes worldwide.
Most concerning of all has been the reaction of Russia. A few weeks ago, the general commanding Russia's strategic missile forces warned that Poland and the Czech Republic could be targeted by Russian missiles if they agreed to host U.S. anti-missile defenses, according to an AP report. This, despite U.S. insistence that the defenses are aimed at a missile attack from the Mideast, not Russia -- a claim bolstered by the small size of the defense, which Russia could overcome with ease.
It might be tempting to dismiss these threats as the blusterings of a bellicose, vodka-swilling bullyboy (take a look at a picture of General Solovtsov, and you'll see what I mean), were it not for the words of his suave, sophisticated, and coldly dangerous boss not long before.
Vladimir Putin is a shining example of the fact that you can take the man out of the KGB, but you can't take the KBG out of the man. He has the background of a Soviet-era secret police boss, which he was, and the instincts of a Russian tsar, which he appears to be headed toward becoming.
On February 10th, again according to AP reports, Putin accused the U.S. of "almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations," and stated that "one state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way," and that this was forcing countries opposed to the U.S. to build up their nuclear arsenals, fomenting a new arms race.
Now, one can observe that the Kremlin complaining of American use of force in international relations and overstepping our national borders is a decided case of the pot calling the kettle black. But that does not mean that Putin is entirely wrong, particularly when he notes that "unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem, they have become a hotbed of further conflicts."
One can quibble over the use of the word "illegitimate." But it is plain that our post-9/11 tendency to go it alone, or with a shaky coalition of the not-entirely-willing, to believe that preemption is an appropriate response to potential threats, to attempt to solve political and social problems with military force, and to believe that 9/11 gave America the moral right to do basically whatever we felt like in the world, has not only failed to achieve the desired ends, but has destabilized the balance of power both in the Middle East, and in the world as a whole.
We can only hope that the next president, of whichever party, proves more willing to engage in multi-lateral negotiations to resolve problems and threats diplomatically, preserving the option to use force as a last resort, not a first choice -- and that the world situation does not worsen too much in the interim.
In the days leading up to the Iraq invasion, I questioned the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war, on the grounds that it would lead dozens of other countries around the world to preemptively invade their neighbors on a variety of flimsy pretexts. After all, if the great United States thinks it's morally justified to invade because it thinks someone might attack it, why shouldn't others?
This, however, did not happen. Unfortunately, however, what did happen, which I utterly failed to predict, is even worse. Countries around the world started making decisions, and conducting actions, out of fear that we might attack them preemptively.
Iran has been the loudest and most belligerent of those, but North Korea's efforts have been the most successful (read: frightening). Kim Jong Il's autocratic but impoverished family fiefdom has managed to "go nuclear," at least in a minor but worrying way. It has also done pretty well about developing long-range missiles that could, if they get the bugs ironed out, carry a North Korean nuclear warhead all the way to the West Coast of the United States.
Kim is a nut-case, granted. But his histrionic avowals that his nuclear program is only defensive in nature, to avert a U.S. attack, don't ring as hollow as they should, taken in the context of Iraq. Ditto Iran, and its pursuit of a "peaceful" nuclear program. Ditto Syria. Ditto, probably, half-a-dozen other countries that may be surreptitiously trying to create or acquire nukes: the fact that we attacked Iraq, which didn't have nuclear weapons, and did not attack North Korea, which does, is not lost on despotic regimes worldwide.
Most concerning of all has been the reaction of Russia. A few weeks ago, the general commanding Russia's strategic missile forces warned that Poland and the Czech Republic could be targeted by Russian missiles if they agreed to host U.S. anti-missile defenses, according to an AP report. This, despite U.S. insistence that the defenses are aimed at a missile attack from the Mideast, not Russia -- a claim bolstered by the small size of the defense, which Russia could overcome with ease.
It might be tempting to dismiss these threats as the blusterings of a bellicose, vodka-swilling bullyboy (take a look at a picture of General Solovtsov, and you'll see what I mean), were it not for the words of his suave, sophisticated, and coldly dangerous boss not long before.
Vladimir Putin is a shining example of the fact that you can take the man out of the KGB, but you can't take the KBG out of the man. He has the background of a Soviet-era secret police boss, which he was, and the instincts of a Russian tsar, which he appears to be headed toward becoming.
On February 10th, again according to AP reports, Putin accused the U.S. of "almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations," and stated that "one state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way," and that this was forcing countries opposed to the U.S. to build up their nuclear arsenals, fomenting a new arms race.
Now, one can observe that the Kremlin complaining of American use of force in international relations and overstepping our national borders is a decided case of the pot calling the kettle black. But that does not mean that Putin is entirely wrong, particularly when he notes that "unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem, they have become a hotbed of further conflicts."
One can quibble over the use of the word "illegitimate." But it is plain that our post-9/11 tendency to go it alone, or with a shaky coalition of the not-entirely-willing, to believe that preemption is an appropriate response to potential threats, to attempt to solve political and social problems with military force, and to believe that 9/11 gave America the moral right to do basically whatever we felt like in the world, has not only failed to achieve the desired ends, but has destabilized the balance of power both in the Middle East, and in the world as a whole.
We can only hope that the next president, of whichever party, proves more willing to engage in multi-lateral negotiations to resolve problems and threats diplomatically, preserving the option to use force as a last resort, not a first choice -- and that the world situation does not worsen too much in the interim.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Striking a blow for food choice
Unlike our neighbor to the north, Pennsylvania, and a number of other states throughout the U.S., Maryland does not believe that people should have a right to purchase fresh, unpasteurized milk and other dairy products from trusted local farmers. Under the guise of protecting our health, the regulators are actually preventing us from enjoying the health benefits of milk and other dairy items which have not been "killed" by pasteurization, and which therefore contain their full compliment of enzymes and beneficial probiotics.
However, with the assistance of the Maryland Independent Consumer and Farmers Association (MICFA), that may be about to change. This very week the Health and Government Operations Committee of Maryland's House of Delegates is considering a bill that would de-regulate direct farmer-to-consumer sales of raw milk and dairy products, restoring both the right and responsibility to make informed food choices where it belongs: with the consumer. And, not incidentally, increasing the ability of small farmers to keep far more of the food dollar than they presently enjoy.
Here is my letter of support, sent to the Committee:
However, with the assistance of the Maryland Independent Consumer and Farmers Association (MICFA), that may be about to change. This very week the Health and Government Operations Committee of Maryland's House of Delegates is considering a bill that would de-regulate direct farmer-to-consumer sales of raw milk and dairy products, restoring both the right and responsibility to make informed food choices where it belongs: with the consumer. And, not incidentally, increasing the ability of small farmers to keep far more of the food dollar than they presently enjoy.
Here is my letter of support, sent to the Committee:
Honorable Delegates,Let's hope this bill not only passes in committee, but makes it through the other hoops and hurdles to become law. As I indicated in the letter above, small farmers, rural communities, the environment of Maryland (including the Bay), and the health of consumers stand only to benefit from the freedom to purchase and consumer this most basic and beneficial of natural foods.
Please let me add my voice to those already raised in support of HB1010, sponsored by Del. Mary Ann Love, which would legalize direct producer-to-consumer sales of raw milk.
It is deeply frustrating to me and to many that we do not have the choice to purchase and consume natural, fresh, unpasteurized milk and dairy products from trustworthy farmers in Maryland, despite considerable evidence of the health benefits such raw dairy products provide. At present, the system is skewed to support huge industrial dairies -- for whom pasteurization is an undeniable necessity -- and regulators have been unwilling or unable to think outside the box. HB1010, if enacted into law, would change that.
In the process, it would not only provide a major boost to health-smart consumers in the Old Line State, but it would help to enable more small farmers to stay on their land, by providing them with a greatly-enhanced source of income. This is good for consumers, farmers, rural communities, and the environment alike: the latter, particularly since farmers whose operations are geared toward on-farm sales of fresh, raw milk to savvy consumers also tend to be farmers practicing sustainable, ecologically-friendly farming methods. This, in turn, is a benefit to the Chesapeake Bay, as well as to our overall quality of life, state-wide.
For the health and well-being of consumers, farmers, and the land, I strongly encourage you to support HB1010.
My heartfelt thanks go to those members of the Committe who are co-sponsors of this bill: Peter Hammen, James Hubbard, Nicholaus Kipke, Karen Montgomery, and Joseline Peña-Melnyk. Those of us who care deeply about fresh, healthy, natural and local foods owe you a debt of gratitude.
And for the rest of you, I implore you to come onboard. With the passage of HB1010, we could be seeing the dawn of a new day for Maryland consumers and farmers alike.
Respectfully and with thanks,
Thomas H. Harbold
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Trans fats tip of Orwellian iceberg (Column: 2/13/07)
If, as seems likely, avoidance is the typical American response when faced with a problem, overreaction is the typical American response when the problem can no longer be ignored. Case in point: trans fats.
Some astute nutritionists, especially those of unconventional persuasions, have been saying for some time that the likely culprit in coronary heart disease is not natural fats, saturated or otherwise, but unnatural ones, such as trans fats, as well as other industrially processed and refined foods. Small quantities of trans fats occur naturally in meats and dairy products, but these naturally-occurring fats have not been implicated in health problems.
The problematic fats are those created artificially by injecting hydrogen into vegetable oils to make them mimic the texture and behavior of naturally-occurring saturated fats. Crisco, for instance, is an artificially-created hydrogenated vegetable oil specifically intended to look and feel like lard. Now, ironically, it is turning out that lard is a good deal healthier for us than Crisco. This is a good example of why it pays to be skeptical of faddish health and dietary claims, and look to traditional foods and diets instead -- but I digress.
Now that it has been confirmed that trans fats are indeed a serious health risk, not only are restaurants and food manufacturers scrambling to find alternatives (some of which have their own problems associated with them), but many municipalities across the country are passing legislation to ban the use of trans fats.
That's where I draw the line.
For the record, I am very pleased that trans fats are being discredited. But I am not pleased that any time something appears to be bad for us, we pass laws to ban it. This kind of nanny-state mentality does us little credit, either as Americans or as humans. It should not be necessary to spell this out, but perhaps it is: freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices. Bad choices come with consequences, from which (hopefully, if we survive) we draw the experience to make better choices in the future.
Regulating every jot and tittle of our lives not only robs us of freedom, it robs us of the opportunity to learn and grow through our experiences. It moves us closer and closer to an Orwellian existence as automatons under the watchful eye of Big Brother, enjoying the last modicum of illusory freedom: the freedom to choose which corporate-controlled, government-approved channel to watch on our giant-screen plasma TVs.
I am exaggerating, of course, but maybe not by much. We see this nanny-statism all around us, and the trend seems to be growing. I don't smoke, in fact I strongly dislike smoking, but I'm still troubled by moves to ban smoking in all public places -- in some municipalities, even outdoors -- and if some radicals had their way, even inside private homes. I am troubled by plans to conduct body-mass indicator (BMI) tests on school-children and send the results home.
I am troubled by the response to the E. coli spinach scare, which is to recommend the creation of a massive new federal bureaucracy that will allegedly guarantee food safety (the same way the Feds guarantee border security, or success in Iraq?), rather than allowing people to make their own choices between industrially mass-produced and centrally-distributed foods, or local foods purchased from a trusted farmer.
And this is just a handful of the more prominent examples. Each of these can be defended, individually, on various grounds. But collectively, they add up to a massive invasion of our rights to privacy and self-determination. We are losing our freedom in the only way we can lose it: by passive acquiescence.
Lulled by high technology, labor-saving devices, and mind-numbing entertainment, Americans have gotten out of the habit of doing for themselves, and into the habit of expecting government to do it all for us: including make our decisions. And government, which by its very nature tends toward the ever more centralized and authoritarian, is all too willing to respond.
I hope I will not be found too irreverent if I paraphrase Martin Neimoeller's famous dictum: “They came for the smokers, and I did not speak, because I was not a smoker. They came for the junk-food eaters, and I did not speak, because I ate little junk food. They came for the trans-fat consumers, and I did not speak, because I avoid trans fats. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak.”
Some astute nutritionists, especially those of unconventional persuasions, have been saying for some time that the likely culprit in coronary heart disease is not natural fats, saturated or otherwise, but unnatural ones, such as trans fats, as well as other industrially processed and refined foods. Small quantities of trans fats occur naturally in meats and dairy products, but these naturally-occurring fats have not been implicated in health problems.
The problematic fats are those created artificially by injecting hydrogen into vegetable oils to make them mimic the texture and behavior of naturally-occurring saturated fats. Crisco, for instance, is an artificially-created hydrogenated vegetable oil specifically intended to look and feel like lard. Now, ironically, it is turning out that lard is a good deal healthier for us than Crisco. This is a good example of why it pays to be skeptical of faddish health and dietary claims, and look to traditional foods and diets instead -- but I digress.
Now that it has been confirmed that trans fats are indeed a serious health risk, not only are restaurants and food manufacturers scrambling to find alternatives (some of which have their own problems associated with them), but many municipalities across the country are passing legislation to ban the use of trans fats.
That's where I draw the line.
For the record, I am very pleased that trans fats are being discredited. But I am not pleased that any time something appears to be bad for us, we pass laws to ban it. This kind of nanny-state mentality does us little credit, either as Americans or as humans. It should not be necessary to spell this out, but perhaps it is: freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices. Bad choices come with consequences, from which (hopefully, if we survive) we draw the experience to make better choices in the future.
Regulating every jot and tittle of our lives not only robs us of freedom, it robs us of the opportunity to learn and grow through our experiences. It moves us closer and closer to an Orwellian existence as automatons under the watchful eye of Big Brother, enjoying the last modicum of illusory freedom: the freedom to choose which corporate-controlled, government-approved channel to watch on our giant-screen plasma TVs.
I am exaggerating, of course, but maybe not by much. We see this nanny-statism all around us, and the trend seems to be growing. I don't smoke, in fact I strongly dislike smoking, but I'm still troubled by moves to ban smoking in all public places -- in some municipalities, even outdoors -- and if some radicals had their way, even inside private homes. I am troubled by plans to conduct body-mass indicator (BMI) tests on school-children and send the results home.
I am troubled by the response to the E. coli spinach scare, which is to recommend the creation of a massive new federal bureaucracy that will allegedly guarantee food safety (the same way the Feds guarantee border security, or success in Iraq?), rather than allowing people to make their own choices between industrially mass-produced and centrally-distributed foods, or local foods purchased from a trusted farmer.
And this is just a handful of the more prominent examples. Each of these can be defended, individually, on various grounds. But collectively, they add up to a massive invasion of our rights to privacy and self-determination. We are losing our freedom in the only way we can lose it: by passive acquiescence.
Lulled by high technology, labor-saving devices, and mind-numbing entertainment, Americans have gotten out of the habit of doing for themselves, and into the habit of expecting government to do it all for us: including make our decisions. And government, which by its very nature tends toward the ever more centralized and authoritarian, is all too willing to respond.
I hope I will not be found too irreverent if I paraphrase Martin Neimoeller's famous dictum: “They came for the smokers, and I did not speak, because I was not a smoker. They came for the junk-food eaters, and I did not speak, because I ate little junk food. They came for the trans-fat consumers, and I did not speak, because I avoid trans fats. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak.”
Barak Obama and the art of nuance (Column: 1/23/07)
Illinois Senator Barak Obama is currently the darling of the media, having recently announced the formation of a Presidential exploratory committee. This is perhaps not surprising. He is young, photogenic, articulate, and tends to speak in terms of bringing people together, rather than separating them -- a refreshing breath of air, in a country often bitterly and rancorously divided by partisanship.
However, it's an old saying that any shaft of wheat that sticks its head above its neighbors will get cut down. And so Senator Obama has been drawing fire -- especially from the left -- for being, of all things, "too nuanced." Too nuanced? Give me a break! After years of black-and-white, my-way-or-the-highway rhetoric from both left and right, we could use a little nuance in our nation's political discourse. Actually, we could use a lot.
Now, it is an open question as to whether Senator Obama is really as nuanced in his thinking as his own rhetoric makes him appear: his voting record, what there is of it, reveals a solidly liberal Democrat. But whether Obama proves to be the man the times are calling for or merely a flash in the pan, I repeat that our national discourse could use a large helping of nuance.
I don't think I'm stupid, but I fail to understand why the American electorate is not interested in any opinion or perspective which cannot be boiled down to a 30-second sound bite. Actually, I take that back: I do understand it, all too well. We have become addicted to 30-second sound bites, thanks to at least two generations of TV commercials, and now the internet. This shortening of the American attention span does us a real disservice, because issues of any substance cannot be discussed adequately, still less resolved, in 30 seconds.
Whatever our principles and ideals -- and principles and ideals are good and worthy things, believe me -- the reality is that life happens not in black and white, but in shades of grey. We need someone in the White House who is not only capable of perceiving shades of grey, but of working within them to get things done and move the country ahead in a positive matter. Right now, Republicans and Democrats are solidly dug into their own entrenched positions like the Allies and Germans in World War One, shelling each other back and forth across No-Man's Land.
Something has to give, because just as the physical landscape of France was destroyed by the artillery barrages of WWI, the rhetorical crossfire between left and right is really tearing up the terrain of our national life. The razor-thin margins by which Presidents have been elected, and even the Houses of Congress controlled, in recent years demonstrates the sharpness of the divide, and those of us who are huddled, somewhat uncomfortably, on the middle ground spend more and more of our time looking apprehensively at the armies gathering to the left and right.
I use the term "armies" advisedly, of course. Thankfully, America has been spared the warring of rival militias which has devastated Iraq, Somalia, and many other nations worldwide. Our system still works. But it is seriously strained by the level of rancor, mistrust, and one-upsmanship which has replaced civility and domestic statesmanship on the national scene.
Doctrinal orthodoxy, which may be admirable (to a point) in religion, has become the order of the day in politics. Some Democrats feel that they cannot even be friends with anyone who voted for George Bush, and some Republicans feel the same way about someone who might be willing to vote for Hillary Clinton. This is hardly a recipe for domestic tranquility.
It is, of course, far too early to determine whether Barak Obama is the one to break this philosophical gridlock, and restore a spirit of cooperation, civility, and bipartisanship to American politics. In fact, that is undoubtedly too much to expect of any one person.
Still, someone has to make a start. I firmly believe that we need more nuance and less absolutism; less black-and-white posturing and more willingness to work within the shades of grey which are an inevitable part of politics. If Senator Obama can make that start, more power to him. Time will tell whether he is the best person to fill the Oval Office after the 2008 elections. But whatever else he may or may not be, Obama deserves credit, not blame, for trying to restore the lost art of political nuance.
However, it's an old saying that any shaft of wheat that sticks its head above its neighbors will get cut down. And so Senator Obama has been drawing fire -- especially from the left -- for being, of all things, "too nuanced." Too nuanced? Give me a break! After years of black-and-white, my-way-or-the-highway rhetoric from both left and right, we could use a little nuance in our nation's political discourse. Actually, we could use a lot.
Now, it is an open question as to whether Senator Obama is really as nuanced in his thinking as his own rhetoric makes him appear: his voting record, what there is of it, reveals a solidly liberal Democrat. But whether Obama proves to be the man the times are calling for or merely a flash in the pan, I repeat that our national discourse could use a large helping of nuance.
I don't think I'm stupid, but I fail to understand why the American electorate is not interested in any opinion or perspective which cannot be boiled down to a 30-second sound bite. Actually, I take that back: I do understand it, all too well. We have become addicted to 30-second sound bites, thanks to at least two generations of TV commercials, and now the internet. This shortening of the American attention span does us a real disservice, because issues of any substance cannot be discussed adequately, still less resolved, in 30 seconds.
Whatever our principles and ideals -- and principles and ideals are good and worthy things, believe me -- the reality is that life happens not in black and white, but in shades of grey. We need someone in the White House who is not only capable of perceiving shades of grey, but of working within them to get things done and move the country ahead in a positive matter. Right now, Republicans and Democrats are solidly dug into their own entrenched positions like the Allies and Germans in World War One, shelling each other back and forth across No-Man's Land.
Something has to give, because just as the physical landscape of France was destroyed by the artillery barrages of WWI, the rhetorical crossfire between left and right is really tearing up the terrain of our national life. The razor-thin margins by which Presidents have been elected, and even the Houses of Congress controlled, in recent years demonstrates the sharpness of the divide, and those of us who are huddled, somewhat uncomfortably, on the middle ground spend more and more of our time looking apprehensively at the armies gathering to the left and right.
I use the term "armies" advisedly, of course. Thankfully, America has been spared the warring of rival militias which has devastated Iraq, Somalia, and many other nations worldwide. Our system still works. But it is seriously strained by the level of rancor, mistrust, and one-upsmanship which has replaced civility and domestic statesmanship on the national scene.
Doctrinal orthodoxy, which may be admirable (to a point) in religion, has become the order of the day in politics. Some Democrats feel that they cannot even be friends with anyone who voted for George Bush, and some Republicans feel the same way about someone who might be willing to vote for Hillary Clinton. This is hardly a recipe for domestic tranquility.
It is, of course, far too early to determine whether Barak Obama is the one to break this philosophical gridlock, and restore a spirit of cooperation, civility, and bipartisanship to American politics. In fact, that is undoubtedly too much to expect of any one person.
Still, someone has to make a start. I firmly believe that we need more nuance and less absolutism; less black-and-white posturing and more willingness to work within the shades of grey which are an inevitable part of politics. If Senator Obama can make that start, more power to him. Time will tell whether he is the best person to fill the Oval Office after the 2008 elections. But whatever else he may or may not be, Obama deserves credit, not blame, for trying to restore the lost art of political nuance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)