LOYALTY

(From today's entry in "The Buddha Diaries")

What are the limits of loyalty?

It’s a vexing question, and one that troubles me particularly in the light of everything that’s happening in our political life today. On one side of the spectrum, I see an excess of loyalty to right-wing ideology and those who are attempting to implement it; on the other, an absence of loyalty that make progress toward goals I believe in difficult if not impossible. On the one side, intransigence; on the other, a contentiousness and a lack of solidarity that makes progress difficult, if not impossible.

I was reminded by this excellent op-ed piece in yesterday’s New York Times about the Democratic disarray which opened the door to Reaganism and the rise of right-wing power.The prime concerns of Hubert H. Humphrey (the centennial of whose birth is celebrated in the article) were social justice and a fair economic playing field. Had the party honored his leadership at the time, we might be living in a different America at the start of the 21^st century.Instead, fired by a well-justified but narrowly-focused rage against the Vietnam war, the party fled from Humphrey in droves, and stood by as Nixon trounced the anti-war McGovern. (I was, I confess, amongst them. Remember, "Dump the Hump"?)

We find ourselves today in a situation with Barack Obama that is in some ways a similar. There are those on the left who are willing to make the war(s) their primary, if not single issue. I, too, am deeply troubled by these endless, quite possibly irresolvable conflicts. And there are those with genuine, multiple, principled disagreements with the President's leadership on the economy and other fronts. I am personally just as greatly troubled, though, by the resultant, dangerous absence of solidarity and support among liberals and progressives, which leaves our side at once enfeebled and demonstrably vulnerable to the lock-step loyalty of Republicans. In our seemingly unshakable insistence on our individual rectitude on any given issue, we risk losing sight of the greater goals.

So what are the proper limits of loyalty? At what point are we compelled to stand on our own principles and mutiny against our leadership—at the risk of causing our ship to founder on the rocks? This is something that we did with extraordinary success last November, withdrawing our support from Democratic candidates in anger or disappointment, or simply abstaining because of our deflated enthusiasm.

We all have beliefs and principles at stake. Should we be prepared to sacrifice any of them—or none?

My thinking is that beliefs and principles are all very fine and may feel very good, but they don’t get us very far. I’m much aware that for every belief that I hold dear, there is someone who holds an opposite, quite possibly incompatible belief. (I may even have a few contradictions in my own thinking!) And rigid adherence to my principles—that is, ideology—can be as destructive as willingness to compromise them. The question is, when does it serve me better to bend, like the proverbial willow in the wind, rather than risk being blasted into oblivion like the oak?

Loyalty, it seems to me, must be a matter for negotiation—between me and my conscience as well as between me and my opponent. Blind loyalty is no better than its absence, and can be very much worse. We saw the effects of it in Nazi Germany. We also, sadly, see the results of intransigence in the never-ending (never-starting!) “peace talks” between the Israelis and the Palestinians. No matter how much “right” there is on either side, there can be no resolution before both sides are ready for some serious give-and-take. Mindless loyalty to the cause on either side will not lead to the peace from which both would surely benefit.

Still, a leader should not be called upon to do constant, paralyzing battle with those on his own side. The useful yardstick, for me, is the greater or the lesser harm: will his efforts lead to a better or worse result? Which might be different from, and lesser than what I myself deem to be the optimum result.

If by loyalty we mean being able to count on backing and support in tough circumstances, it seems to me that we on the left would do more to further our cause by lending that support than angrily withdrawing it when the optimal goal is not more immediately in sight, or when we happen to disagree. Barack Obama is not—at least in my view—the great betrayer of all principle and breaker of promises that he’s made out to be by those who are disappointed in the slow—they might say, non-existent—pace of change. I say rather that he has his eyes on the same prize as myself: social and economic justice, an end to oppression of all kinds, peace in the world and shared prosperity, a proper balance between humankind and nature. But these results do not come easy in today’s contentious political environment, and I personally don’t have the responsibility, nor the skills--as he does, with our support and that of his political allies--to make those things happen.

My own contention is that Obama is (in what has become a tritely popular construction in the political rhetoric of the day) on "the right side of history"; that he has both the vision and the patience to persist; and that he deserves the solid backing of our support. He has mine. I hope he has yours.

Intimidation?

My friend Stuart sent me a link to this cartoon by Chuck Asay...

... with the following question: How does Vote Obama 2012 handle this perception?

It's a legitimate question, and one that's frequently raised on the left. Do Obama and the Democrats capitulate too easily to ideologically-drive right-wing notions? Do they too easily sacrifice their principles? I wrote back to Stuart as follows:

I think VO 2012 addresses this perception with the argument that Obama is indeed open to--even solicits--alternative ideas, alternative solutions from the opposition; but not bad ones. In this instance, an immediate blanket ban on all drilling is probably impracticable, given our deeply ingrained national addiction. But it needs to be done with strict government regulation and safety supervision. So it's not capitulation to a Republican idea, but appropriate attention and modification. Would that work for you? Cheers, P

NY 26th

(Cross-posted on The Buddha Diaries)

The stunning reversal in New York's 26th Congressional District yesterday, while a hopeful sign for the Democrats, suggests some rather depressing things about the American electorate. Personalities aside--and I'm guessing that the winner was a more... well, winning personality than the woman she defeated--one would want to assume that voters were persuaded as much by promises and policies when they elected a Republican just a half year or so ago, and by a vast majority. One might also, fairly, assume that yesterday's result was in good part an utter repudiation of what the Republicans have done, and what they have proposed to do, since gaining control of the House of Representatives.

My own conclusion is that voters were not listening last November. It's not that Republicans failed to make their intentions clear. True, they dressed those intentions up in fancy rhetoric about jobs and tax cuts, and sold them aggressively to easily seduced buyers. But really, who could be surprised by their continuing, stubborn, irrational opposition to everything the President presented--even when, at times, his proposals met with or surpassed their own requirements? Who could be surprised by their draconian budget proposal, their attack on Medicare, their inalterable opposition to putting an end to the Bush tax cuts? All these were perfectly predictable, to anyone who cared to listen to their message.

The point is, people listened to what they wanted to hear. They listened to the fear and the greed in their own gut, not to the unconcealed ideology or its predictable consequences. There was no exercise of judgment, no critical discernment. I have to add, ruefully, that something similar can be said about Democratic voters in 2008. They projected all their desires and all their hopes on candidate Obama. He became some kind of messiah, rather than the politician that he was, and is, necessarily, in order to reach the Oval Office. He could never have fulfilled all the expectations that built up around him. (I hear you say, "But he promised!" Don't you listen to a politician's promises with an ounce of realistic skepticism?)

If it were in my power to endow American voters with a gift--excuse, for a moment, the presumption!--it would be the gift of that skepticism. And I'm not talking about the cynical form that discounts all hope and aspiration with a smirk; nor the kind that belittles every effort to progress. I'm talking about the kind of skepticism that simply asks reasonable questions and insists on reasonable answers; the kind of skepticism that requires the careful examination of conscience and the weighing of likely outcomes; the kind of skepticism that is as skeptical of itself and its own self-interest as it is of others.

So the wild pendulum swing in New York's 26th District is less a cause for celebration among Democrats than for some sober self-questioning. Where were all those voters in November, 2010, who so miraculously saw the light in May, 2011? What does it mean, that the pendulum swung so far, so fast? What dangers does the swing suggest, and how must they be addressed? The success of a democracy depends on the educational maturity of the demos. No nation can be run on the basis of purely emotional self-interest. It must be governed by rational choices and well-thought decisions. But alas, given the history of the past couple of years, I'm compelled to wonder if this is what people find so objectionable about Obama? I remain, um, skeptical.

THE PEACE PROCESS

Here's the Baltimore Sun's editorial response to Obama's Sunday speech to the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington. I watched a part of the speech myself and, based on what I saw, agree with the editorial. I note that the speech was generally well received, and that even Prime Minister Netanyahu modified the hard-line position he took just a couple of days earlier.

I found myself in yet another argument this morning on a familiar topic: the complaint, from the left, that Obama has not fulfilled his promises, that he has failed to stand up to the right, that he has capitulated to the capitalist oligarchy, that he lacks leadership skills and so on. As I have said many times, and repeat again here, I myself am not in agreement with Obama on all matters, nor do I believe that he has yet lived up to his full potential. But I do take issue with those on the left who, on the basis of ideals with which I do not disagree, either withdraw their support from the president or shower him noisily with blame.

As I see it, both the "hold you nose and vote" and the "lesser of two evils" approach risk doing more harm than good as we move toward the next election. With irrational anger and, yes, sheer, blind hatred directed at him from the right, Obama needs the continued, active support of those of us who voted for him and want him to do more than he has been able to do to date. If his erstwhile supporters add their raised voices to the right-wing attacks, he cannot hope to achieve any part of that change he envisioned--and that we endorsed. The obstacles are just too immense. And outraged rhetoric serves nothing other than the egos of those already convinced of their own rectitude.

It's not my intention to stand as a mere apologist for the president--he has no need of those. I think we need instead to respect what he has in fact demonstrably managed to achieve in the most difficult and politically charged of circumstances, and refrain from allowing our legitimate, necessary criticism to become the angry and destructive rhetoric I hear from friends and read in ideological left-wing blogs. We have enough toxins in our political dialogue as it is.

I am not a Reagan fan, far from it. But his famous eleventh commandment--that "thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"--has resulted to our dismay in a depressingly effective party unity. I do not believe that we should refrain from reasoned criticism of the president; but I do believe that it would strengthen our cause to refrain from speaking ill. A peace process would not be unwelcome among Democrats, whether "liberal" or "progressive"--or even middle of the road.

Middle East Speech

I just listened to the President's Middle East speech from the State Department. I suspect he will be faulted on all sides, as usual--particularly because it's such an incredibly fraught and tricky situation that there are no ready, one-size-fits-all answers; and because this country can no longer step in and solve other people's problems. Obama rightly defers to the people of each country to resolve their own issues. He did, however, in this speech, come up with a clear statement of what America does, and does not support, and of the values our policy should be guided by. I was particularly glad that he made a point of insisting on the rights of women, and that he addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with both forthrightness and sympathy, and with an emphasis on the need for proactive compromise on both sides.

We can now expect the pundits to carry on interminably, until they find something else to argue about.

iMatterMarch

I heard about iMatterMarch.org while listening to MSNBC over lunch today. This is the most heartening thing I have heard about on the political scene for an awful long time, an effort by teenagers to assert their right to inherit a habitable planet. They march, they protest and, on the practical level, they are bringing lawsuits in the attempt to compel the federal and state governments to take action to protect the environment. Here's what these young people say, and ask for:

Top climate scientists have determined what is needed to get our atmosphere balanced again at 350 ppm within a century.

• peak emissions in 2011
• least a 6% reduction in global CO2 emissions every year
• 100 gigaton reforestation (especially in the tropics)

These youngsters deserve our support. They have taken it upon themselves to do what their elders lack the guts to do, with an intelligence and foresight sadly lacking in their seniors. It's their future, and they are right to challenge those who would wish to deprive them of it.

I'm planning to make a contribution to their cause. I hope that readers of these words might do the same.

And, President Obama, pay attention to this opportunity to lend these smart young people the support of your office.

A STEADY HAND

Not much time to spare, today. Still, as I wrote this morning on The Buddha Diaries, I could not let the moment pass without a word of praise for the President's interview on last night's 60 minutes. He was calm, clear, concise in his answers to Steve Kroft's questions. He avoided boasting or self-aggrandizement--though not coy about taking credit where it was appropriate--and came off, I thought, as a steady and reliable "Commander-in-Chief." He stands comfortably head and shoulders--and more!--above the craven contenders for his office, and is remarkable for the ease and comfort with which he handles himself in the most trying of circumstances. I get the sense, watching him, that he has the context of a much larger perspective in mind in all that he says and does, and that he is not easily swayed into rash decisions and actions by the pressures of the moment. I think we are wise to have elected this clear-headed man at a time when our country and the world are rushing toward the precipice. I trust that he will prevail in the 2012 election. I need to believe we have placed the reins in steady, thoughtful hands.

BELIEFS

Today, on The Buddha Diaries, I have some thoughts about the destructive role of "beliefs" in our political process.

Bin Laden: Corpus Delicti

(cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries)

I'm astounded... no, why should I be astounded by this familiar pattern of events. After a few hours of faint praise for Obama, the second-guessing starts.

There is, as I see it, a legitimate moral question as to whether the Osama bin Laden assassination (call it by its name) should have been undertaken in the first place. Had we elected a Buddhist abbott to the White House, he might not have approved it. We didn't. We elected a hard-headed pragmatist with the expectation that he would take responsibility for the nation's business both at home and abroad. World leaders are required to make decisions most of us would shrink from making--including, alas, in a world inhabited by wicked humans as well as by the well-intentioned, decisions about war and peace. Violence is sometimes, for such people, not an option. My own personal qualms about taking a life, in this case, are easy enough to debate because they have no real-life implications or consequences. They are, in a sense, a luxury. And even with those qualms, my thinking is balanced in this case by a sense of justice accomplished.

Once we're past that debate, however, we risk descending into small-minded contention and absurdity. There are thus far four fronts of attack. The first was opened up by the revelation that bin Laden did not have a gun in his hands at the moment of his demise--as though this were some 1950s Hollywood oater whose conventions require the bad guy to draw first. No, this was an assassination, pure and simple. Clearly, from reports I have heard, had the man come forward with his hands in the air in an act of overt surrender, he would not have been gunned down. He did not. A fire fight was in progress. He was, as it were, commander of the fort that was under assault and providing fierce resistance. I'm no expert on the rules of war, but once I'm past my Buddhist qualms, I have no problem with this one.

Next, of course, is the burial at sea. Was it Muslim enough? And why dispose of the corpus delicti? Who will now believe that he is actually dead? We should have preserved the body as evidence... I actually thought this was a rather brilliant solution. No place of burial, no martyr's shrine. A Muslim ceremony to show respect for the religion, not the man. And slip the corpse into the ocean, an anonymous presence in an anonymous location, and hopefully lost to the world's consciousness.

And then the photos. The hunger for evidence, in part perhaps, but also for sensation. Obama's choice was a wise one, in my view. He reminds us frequently to ask ourselves, what kind of a country do we want to be? Do we want, in this instance, to be the kind of country that makes public exhibition of its violence? To produce the bloody pictures would be the equivalent of that gruesome medieval practice of impaling the victim's head on a pike and raising it above the castle walls. It would be an open taunting of those to whom we wish to show our humanity, a further provocation and incitement to violence among those to whom we wish to preach the values of peace and tolerance.

And finally, Geronimo. I confess that I was taken aback at first by the code name that seemed to have been assigned to Osama bin Laden. But then I read, in the exhaustive New York Times report, I think, that it was the operation that was code-named Geronimo; bin Laden's code name was "Jackpot"--a far more appropriate association. I'm hoping/assuming that this was a confusion promulgated by the media. It would have been insensitive, to say the least, to have honored this mass-murderer with the name of a brave man who had the courage and audacity put his life on the line in the service of his people--in much the same way as those intrepid Navy Seals who conducted the operation. If I have it right, it would seem entirely fitting and in no way disrespectful to the history of our native Americans, but rather a fine way of honoring their hero.

I have yet to see this last point clarified. I hope I'm right. On all other points, I support the President's decisions and remain in awe of the cool-headed, meticulous planning and execution of this unpleasant but historically necessary operation.

STRENGTH & DETERMINATION

I defer today to the New York Times editorial, The Myth of Mr. Obama's Weakness. I agree with the concluding hope, that we can now leave the pusillanimous and opportunistic personal attacks on Obama's character behind, and get on with a discussion of the real issues that we face.

OBAMA/OSAMA

(From today's entry in The Buddha Diaries...)

So what's a Buddhist to say about last night's news? The death of Osama bin Laden came as a huge surprise, with the President interrupting our evening with his announcement. Do we condemn the taking of life, or celebrate the demise of a man whose past actions and future intentions are equally and unquestionably evil? In an ideal world, retribution is hardly a noble, less still a Buddhist practice. It can be said to merely perpetuate the cycle of violence and to generate unwished-for karmic response. On the other hand, in the real world, I'll confess to a certain satisfaction, and a sense of justice fulfilled.

Will the careful preparation and apparently impeccable execution of this operation do anything to silence--or even quiet--those critics who complain about Obama's equanimity and patience, his insistence on examining a situation from all sides, with an eye to the eventual outcome? Probably not. And yet the story, insofar as it is known to date, suggests that he brought all those qualities to bear, along with a great deal of courage. The action was surely fraught with risks. It could have very easily ended up like Jimmy Carter's disastrous--and widely ridiculed--attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran. Its success was just as surely due to the several months that were devoted, since last August, to the verification of intelligence and the meticulous planning. It was, from all I hear, a faultless operation, for which we have not only the skills of the special forces involved, but also the rigor of their commander to thank.

The statement announcing the event was also classical Obama. He carefully avoided boasting, claimed an appropriate amount of credit for himself and was generous with the credit he assigned to others--including his predecessor, whose rash abandonment of the hunt for Osama in favor of a dubious and unrelated war proved a grave setback to his promise for justice. In reminding the American people that this was not a part of some war against Islam, he wisely and generously recalled the same assertion made by George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. His tone was measured, calm, authoritative, and he projected a quiet, confident strength--beside which his current critics and opponents look like a bunch of ill-informed and mean-spirited hysterics. Chalk a big one up for Obama in the political sphere.

And then... retribution is one thing. Prevention is another. Being of a generation who remember such things, here's a question I ask myself: knowing what we now know about 20th century history--and had we been able--could we, should we have assassinated Adolf Hitler in the later 1930s, before he unleashed his madness on the world? Should we, if we could, assassinate Colonel Muammar Ghadaffi today? Where there's a deadly snake that threatens whole populations and that could be clearly and cleanly rendered harmless by decapitation, are we right to cut off its head? My head and heart say one thing; my gut says something else entirely.

Any thoughts?