A PHOTO I LIKE

Here's a photo I like. There's eloquence in the gesture, and such pleasure in the police constable's face.

A GOOD LETTER

From the New York Times, 6/15/2011

To the Editor:

Re “Politicians Behaving Well” (column, June 10):

Why does David Brooks feel the need to refer back to Edmund Burke and Anthony Trollope to find an exemplary politician? We have one in the White House.

President Obama has been excoriated by both the left and the right with the most extreme and unrealistic invective used against any president in my lifetime, yet has never responded in kind. He has treated his opponents with respect, even when their opposition was beyond disrespectful.

He has taken the time to reflect and seek the counsel of the wise and learned, even when he was being accused of inaction, yet has acted decisively when necessary. And he has taken the opportunity to instruct us in our highest concerns, even when the throng was calling for soaring rhetoric.

In short, he has personified precisely the standards of political excellence Burke set forth. If only the American electorate cared.

DAVID BERMAN
New York, June 10, 2011

The Value of Nuance

I did not watch the debate of the Republican candidates for president last night, but from the excerpts I saw and what I read in the newspaper this morning it would appear that all seven devoted the better part of their time to bashing President Obama for his supposed failures. They did not, I gather, mention, that the President has failed mostly thus far in attempting to fix the damage their own policies caused. Even today, the economic policy they propose seems to advocate mainly a return to those failed policies, with the conviction that what failed before will succeed the next time around. Their tired--and tiresome--mantra: lower taxes for all, most especially for the rich and for record profit-making businesses; and smaller government.

I did watch the Ann Curry interview with President Obama this morning, and was impressed, as always, by his fair, thoughtful, balanced responses to her questions. The response on whether Rep. Anthony Weiner should resign was pure Obama--fair, carefully nuanced, rational. Unlike those who have been busy throwing stones at Weiner in their own glass House of Representatives, the President first, and correctly, answered that this was a matter between Weiner and those who elected him. The "If it were me..." addition concentrated less on the moral issues than on the question of public service. If his ability to serve were compromised, he said--of himself--he would choose to step down.

I like the absence of the "should." The President's answer left the responsibility where it properly belongs: with the Congressman and his constituents. He did not, notably, in any way excuse Weiner's actions, but neither did use his own moral condemnation as the righteous standard for another man to follow. Instead, he made it unequivocally clear how he himself would handle that responsibility, upholding his own ethical standards while not imposing them on others. The subtlety of this distinction may well be where he gets into trouble with those whose ears are desensitized to nuance: to them, perhaps, it sounds more like an abdication of responsibility. It's not. It's a respect for the freedom and responsibility of others, including Weiner--and, more importantly, the people the congressman was elected to serve.

"Vote Obama 2012" continues to solicit opinions from others. I know that there are many voters out there who think, as I do, that this President has done a remarkable job in starting to address the mess that he was left with. As he himself concedes in every possible occasion, it's not good enough; there is still much work to do. To return to the demonstrably warped and counter-productive policies of the past is not a serious option. Please consider adding your voice to mine if you agree.

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.