NAUSEATING

No question but that Newark Mayor Cory Booker mis-spoke on that Sunday morning news show, when he used strong, passionate language to assail the use of personal attack ads, which he described as "nauseating."  Fair enough.  But he misspoke in suggesting a comparison between the Obama campaign ads about Bain capital and the Republican reversion to the old Rev. Wright assault on Obama.  As many commentators have already pointed out, Romney is running hard on his record as a successful "job-creator" as a businessman, which makes that record a legitimate subject for investigation and criticism.  Only by the wildest stretch of the imagination could Obama be accused of sharing the rabid anti-American views expressed on one occasion long ago by the Rev. Wright.

Still, the Republicans leap in with both feet when they see an opening, and they found one here.  Romney now openly accuses Obama of scurrilous personal attacks and self-righteously proclaims his own intention to run a spotlessly clean campaign.  It's amazing to watch the truth being turned so smoothly on its head--and being echoed by the multitude of right-wing zealots.  Booker himself has forcefully rejected his co-option into the Romney campaign, but that does not prevent the machinery of politics from turning his remarks into sausage for their breakfast.  I have no doubt we'll be seeing Booker's face in many a television commercial.

Obama's response to the press was, as always, measured.  I have not heard him stoop to a single personal attack on Romney.  Not so his opponent, who glibly "stands by" his comments, "whatever they were," in which he unambiguously accused Obama of wanting to turn this country into a "less Christian nation."  I personally would applaud such an effort, but the president has given no indication of attempting such a laudable goal.  But the remark allowed Romney to signal insidious support to those who persist in believing Obama to be a Muslim, bent on converting the entire country to Islam and introducing sharia law; and he stands by it, whatever it was.

Mayor Booker erred, in my view, in seeming to equate the strategies of the two campaigns.  I myself work hard to dissociate my personal opinions of Romney-which are not too high--from my critical understanding of the policies with which he proposes to lead the country.  I am not always successful.  But I can still be appalled by the cognitive dissonance purposefully exploited by the other side, where simple, self-evident truths get twisted into lies, and self-evident lies are presented insistently as truths.

GIVING CREDIT...

... where's it's due.

My friend and frequent Buddha Diaries reader Gary dropped me a line to remind me to take note of the arrival of Chen Guangcheng in New York.  It is, as he suggests, both a tribute to the deliberate and unflappable approach of Obama--and of course his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton--to the management of international affairs, and a rebuke to those who would go off half-cocked in response to the kind of crisis the blind lawyer's dramatic run for freedom might provoke.

I admire the quality of restraint.  Obama's refusal to act in haste attracts the ire of those to the left of him as well as of those to the right.  But he's right.  Two recent examples come to mind.  The first is the thoughtful--and to many, much too slow--process of self examination that brought him to his expression of support for same-sex marriage.  He stands accused from both sides of acting out of political contingency; I see it differently.  His statement, though likely precipitated by his Vice-President's remarks a few days earlier, emphasized the personal nature of his "evolution" to a new position, describing it as the result of internal debate, of discussions with friends and family, and of seeing things through the eyes of others--notably his children.  No doubt there were also political considerations but the man is, after all, a politician and must, of necessity, concern himself with the political repercussions of his actions.  They are a part of the debate.

The second example comes from my reading of this article by David E. Sanger in today's New York Times, describing in detail the process by which he reached his current position on the war in Afghanistan--a process that began in 2009 and reached its conclusion only recently.  I have no doubt but that the president was mindful of the conflicting political winds that swirled about him: those on the left dismayed, if not outraged by his failure to bring it to a swift conclusion; and those on the right demanding more aggressive action.  There were the voices, too, of his civilian advisors, and those of the military brass--not to mention those of NATO allies, of the internally warring Afghans and the neighboring nations, especially Pakistan.  Sanger's article describes a thorough, thoughtful, patient process, a willingness to listen and hold back until his own path became clear to him.  I have every confidence that he will pursue that path with the same patience and refusal to be swayed by those on all sides less patient than himself.

The President is given little credit for this quiet deliberation.  It does not lend itself to wild applause, and  mostly goes overlooked and under appreciated.  I myself am grateful for his steadiness of purpose.  It is infinitely preferable to the shoot-from-the-hip impulsiveness of his predecessor, which needlessly cost many human lives and hastened economic debacle.  It's time, I'd say, to give credit where it's due.

(Cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries.)

GAY MARRIAGE, REVISITED

Well, so much for my thoughts of this morning!  This afternoon, it's all different.  I admire the president's courage, and I hope very much that my fears prove unfounded, and that his decision will work to his advantage.  Not sure if this has defused the issue, or fused another one...

GAY MARRIAGE

It's not so simple.  Whichever way you look at it, it's a dilemma.  Here was this friend of mine at the gym this morning, gay, pleading with the president: Please, do NOT come out in support of gay marriage--at least until after the election.  And many others are doing everything they can to force his hand.

I myself do not for one moment believe that Obama is opposed to gay marriage.  He made clear his opposition to the North Carolina Amendment 1, which voters (shamefully, in my view) approved yesterday.  He has said his thinking on the matter is "evolving."  Okay.  I don't actually believe that, either.  He stands charged by many liberal-minded people, I think justly, with equivocation.  Those on the left are quick to blame him for timidity on an issue of importance to them.  They fault him for an absence of leadership.

I don't agree that it's a matter of timidity, I think it's rather a matter of judgment, a matter of patience and political discernment.  Obama is cautious.  And why not?  I happen to think that's an asset rather than a deficit.  The same people who blame Obama for his caution are those who readily blamed his predecessor for a lack of it.  Leadership is not a matter of blurting out every thought or dashing into action on the slimmest of evidence: this led us into war.

And there is, here, an overriding concern.  The November election promises to be a very tight one.  I would not want the president to do or say one single thing that could jeopardize his return to office.  The alternative is simply too appalling--and at this point it's about more than the issues: Gov. Romney's mendacity and weakness become more apparent by the day.  So I'm with today's letter-writer on the editorial page of the New York Times who wrote the following: "I suspect that, like me and like Mr. Biden, [the president] has absolutely no problem with gay marriage--but it is in the overwhelming interest of all of us that he be re-elected."

As is so often the case, it is those with the best intentions who are capable of doing the most harm.  

RAGE, PASSION... AND DISPASSION

(Cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries.)

I’ve been thinking about the difference between passion and rage.  Both, it would seem to me, have their origin in the fire at the pit of the belly.  But one is bent primarily on destruction, the other on creation.  One consumes, the other constructs.  Passion, I think, is entirely consonant with its opposite, dispassion.  Rage is at odds with everything, especially its opposite: calm.  Passion inspires.  Rage eats at the gut and leaves its host hollowed out and exhausted.

I heard former Senator Bill Bradley say this morning (on the CBS Morning Show) that government action is determined by money.  (My paraphrase, I hope it's accurate.)  I presume that those who possess the money use it dispassionately, and usually with the purpose of making more—though I’m not taking philanthropy into account here.  A successful democracy would depend, too, upon the dispassionate exercise of reason, even though opinions may be passionately held.  What’s happening at the moment in America is that the interests of wealth are being furthered by the dispassionate, rational manipulation righteous of rage—rage on the left as well as on the right. 

Those who rage on the right are being persuaded by the astute use of vast sums of money to agitate and vote against their own interests, so that others may profit from their passion.  The rage of those on the left is more subtly manipulated: the strategy is to subvert their goals with the passion of their own ideals.  The attachment to their ideals is so passionate that they are readily seduced into believing that they are betrayed by any deviation from idealistic principles or goals. 

My own belief is that it is possible to be both passionate and dispassionate at one and the same time.  This is what I mean when I say that passion is entirely consonant with its opposite.  I myself share the ideals of those on the left, and passionately so.  But I recognize the need to acknowledge that the outcomes I wish for are not all practically attainable—at least not with the speed and ease that I would wish in the face of bitter, intractable opposition. 

So, for my fellow lefties, I wish the quality of dispassion.  They will personally suffer less, and they will contribute more to their cause by tempering their passion with patience and the exercise of reason than by exercising it in the form of rage.  I refuse to have my passion used to destroy what I believe in.  I refuse to succumb to the subliminal sales pitch with which corporate power and money seeks to suborn me.

These people are clever.  They can easily persuade those in their sway that strength is weakness, that success is failure, that courage is cowardice, that ignorance is more estimable than knowledge, that science is myth, that vengeance is justice, or that war is the path to peace.  Money, they know, can buy belief and loyalty.  It can buy certitude as well as servitude.  Caveat emptor.  We on the left must acknowledge the success of these strategies when we allow ourselves to be governed solely by our rage.  Our passion, we need.  Our rage is purchased and put to use by our opponents.  It serves their purposes, not ours.

A DARK DAY FOR ROMNEY

So candidate Romney feels free, in the midst of a grave international crisis, to wade in with his comment that "this is a dark day for freedom, and it's a day of shame for the Obama administration."  Really?  He was referring, of course, to the situation in China, where the dissident attorney, Chen Guangcheng, has complicated an already complex situation by deciding to leave the asylum of the American Embassy--and then changing his mind.  


Or course we should be on the side of the angels.  Of course we stand for freedom.  Of course we should do what we can to protect a dissident from a repressive government.  And Chen's odyssey, a blind man escaping his home detention and successfully dodging the authorities on a three-hundred mile trek to the American Embassy, makes of the man a particularly appealing figure, a hero of dissent.  


He has, nonetheless, created and then complicated an intolerable diplomatic situation, hard enough for Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to work out without the gratuitous sideline comments of one who seeks only to score political points.  Romney has not, to my knowledge, volunteered his wisdom on the solution to this problem.  What would he do, at this point?  Kidnap Chen and his family and smuggle them back into the asylum that he voluntarily left?  Further alienate a powerful foreign state in which were seeking to encourage human rights?  Give up on the important trade discussions that were planned?  Where's Romney, the business man?  


What do we learn about the candidate from these words?  Nothing more, really, than what we already know: that he will do anything, say anything, no matter how contradictory, untruthful or destructive, in order to gain the presidency.  Spare me.  Spare us all from this mendacious and impolitic blunderer.

STRENGTH

(Cross-posted at The Buddha Diaries.)

It's the old fable about the proud old oak tree and the reed.  (That link is to Jean de la Fontaine's version, unfortunately in a rather prosy translation.  Ah well.)  The oak tree boasts about its strength, but when the big wind blows, it doesn't know how to bend and gets blown down.  The flexible reed weathers the storm because it knows when it's time to allow the elements their power.

I was thinking about this last night as I watched the television report on the bin Laden raid and heard the inevitable comparisons between our two most recent presidents.  The image of George W. Bush strutting on the deck of that aircraft carrier was a poignant contrast with Obama, taking a back seat, huddled on a folding chair in the situation room, letting go of control in a situation in which he knew he had none, and trusting to others to fulfill the orders he had given.

The qualms I have about that assassination come from the head and its moral judgments rather than the gut.  The decision the president made could not have been an easy one for him.  The stakes were enormous.  Failure would have been disastrous, both from the geopolitical point of view and for his presidency.  Those who wish to detract from his courage in making that decision raise the specter of Jimmy Carter's failed attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran.  They forget that he demonstrated the same courage in taking the risk; that he was not to blame to the disastrous outcome did not spare him from its consequences.  Because the mission did not succeed, he was perceived as weak.  In fact, the contrary was true: his decision proved him strong.

It was surely thanks to the meticulous planning and the patient execution that the bin Laden raid succeeded.  Obama and his team had the luxury of time.  No matter what your opinion of assassination as a political tool, you have to admire the cool determination and the extraordinary skill and courage of those involved in this operation, from the president to the military chiefs to those members of the Seal team who brought it to fruition.  Each one, this television report made clear, had a specific function and responsibility.  It was a remarkable collaborative effort.

Strength relies in good part on intelligence.  The martial arts teach us that it can be useless, even dangerous, if used with brute force, without skill and timing.  The opponent's strength is something to be understood and used against him.  When I hear the president's domestic enemies attempt to label him as weak, their attacks ring hollow; they make themselves, instead, look impotent.  If they mistake his resolve in the coming election, they do so at their peril.  Let them boast, like that old oak tree, to their heart's content.  This reed of a president understands about strength--and when and how to use it.

NO HARD QUESTIONS FROM THE MEDIA

(Please note that I have a giveaway on Goodreads now set up.  If you don't already have a copy of Mind Work, feel free to seize this opportunity to grab a freebie!  

In return, I would greatly appreciate it if you would assist me in expanding my network on Goodreads.  If you are already part of the site, you can find an author page as well as my personal profile (where I review and discuss books and the ideas I pursue in Mind Work).  Short reviews of Mind Work on Goodreads are always welcome, and will help to spread the word about the book.)

I watched yesterday's CBS This Morning interview with Mitt and Ann Romney, in which the couple were encouraged to spend a good deal of time "humanizing" the Republican candidate.  CBS boasts more news in the morning, and I had expected better of Charlie Rose, who basks in a reputation for seriousness.  I didn't get it.  I got smiling, almost obsequious approval.

Okay, its was fair enough to give the candidate the opportunity to show his human side.  Fair enough, too, in my opinion, was Romney's expressed "disappointment" in the Obama campaign's ad suggesting that the Republican would have acted differently in the Osama bin Laden event, whose anniversary we mark today.  It was fair enough, as Romney conceded with every appearance of good grace, to claim this as a courageous decision by the President.  It was not fair, though, to suggest that Romney would not have had the same measure of guts.

What was outrageous about the interview, though, was the total abdication on the part of the CBS team of any journalistic responsibility to challenge Romney's glib assertions that Obama's economic policies have been a failure--and that he, Romney, had the magic key to economic recovery.  Current evidence suggests, on the contrary, that the Obama policies are beginning to take effect and that the economy is recovering--more slowly, certainly, than any of us would wish.  But it's happening.  How come the CBS team did not ask a single question about this?

Romney's bland assertion that he knows how to fix the complex problems that we face apparently also deserved no further questions.  His support for the Ryan budget ("marvelous"!) and for policies that have long proven misguided and counter-productive--not only in the Bush years, but for the decades following Ronald Reagan's "trickle-down" delusions--went unchallenged.  Even George H. W. Bush described them as "voodoo economics."  But there was not a single question about taxes, or the vast gap between rich and poor.  Not a single question about labor, even on May Day.  Not a word about the replacement of revenues lost by continuing, even increased tax cuts for the wealthy. The candidate was allowed to simply assert the unquestionable superiority of policies over those of the President.

He was allowed, too, to blithely assert that the President has not been speaking about these issues and is not bothering to address them.  I watch a little television now and then, and even I am better informed than that.  I see the President constantly addressing economic issues, in almost every forum where he makes a speech.  He has spoken time and again about the plight of the middle class and the suffering of the poor.  He has spoken about the consequences of rising educational costs and the shrinking job market.  He has spoken frankly about health care costs and social security.

Romney, to my knowledge, has spoken only in generalities.  He feels free--because, as on CBS This Morning, unchallenged--to put words in Obama's mouth, or to suggest that Obama's policies are a failure.  But no one, lest of all this CBS team, takes the trouble to ask him specifically about his plans for success, ow to achieve the miracle he tells us he can work.  Sounds like voodoo to me.

I would worry less about this morning's debacle if it were an isolated case.  But no, this typifies the election coverage on the part of the network television stations.  No hard questions.  No follow-up.  Allow the candidate to get away with wild assertions that have no basis in fact.  Ignore the fact that the president is addressing economic issues on a daily basis and in a serious and detailed way, and go along with the unfounded charges of inaction and incompetence.

The American voter deserves to hear the answers to hard questions from both candidates for the office.  I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting for someone to ask those questions of Romney.

MAY DAY, MAYDAY

I note that Richard (RJ) Eskow has already written (and published) my article for the day, May Day, Mayday--the former being, of course, the ancient spring celebration of renewal when we dance around the maypole in joyful tribute to its phallic splendor;  and the latter being the international distress call.  As Eskow points our, more eloquently and more knowledgeably than I could, the ship of our state is foundering, and our distress is dire.  I'll quote only his peroration, and beg that, if you haven't already done so, you click on this link and read the whole thing, from beginning to end.  He has it right.  Here's his final distress call

Mayday. Mayday. Mayday. This is the United States of America. Our democracy and economy are failing. Our lives are endangered by greed and weather. We are abandoning our old and our young, our poor and our disabled. Our blood and wealth are being squandered in deserts and mountains. 

Our rights are being sacrificed on a cash-and-carry altar. We're threatened by faceless corporate entities, by the technologies of espionage and intrusion and remote-controlled weaponry. Our political offices are "remote-controlled machinery" too. 

Our pilot and crew are under the influence of unseen forces. Our position is unknown and our time is growing short. We have 311 million souls on board. We are in urgent need of assistance. 

In other news, we've been told that the White House Correspondents' Dinner was very entertaining. 

It's May 1, 2012. It's May Day. Mayday.

To Eskow's words, I add only the note that the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is attempting a resurgence on this propitious day.  According to this report in the San Francisco Chronicle, the event is dampened somewhat by the train.  As I told my friend Michael on the telephone yesterday, there are signs of discontent and renewal, even in today's bleak political scene in America.  I wish the Occupy Wall Street people well.  It's my hope that their blunt message has already left its mark on our common political consciousness, and that the results will show up in November.  Long live "Occupy"!  And yes, thanks to Richard Eskow for putting it all down with such passion and outrage.  

SOS, of course, is the other distress call.  Save Our Souls.  May Eskow's distress call be heard, and may our souls be saved.