ANIMOSITY

(Cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries)

In the daily metta practice with which I start my meditation, I reiterate the wish to be free from animosity. It's easy enough when it comes to those I like, and with whom I generally agree; the hard part is with the people I dislike, and those with whom I disagree. They include, most recently, the politicians who have in my own view seemed bent on destroying this country. The dharma teaches me, wisely and I think correctly, that the animosity that arises serves only to introduce toxin into my own veins. It certainly does nothing to change those against whom it is directed.

These thoughts were stirred in part by the comment to my entry in The Buddha Diaries yesterday. I was writing about gratitude, concluding with a note about the surprise and plucky appearance of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to cast her vote on the debt ceiling bill in the House of Representatives, and my gratitude to her for reminding me of the importance of the vote. Not a word about Obama. But my entry somehow triggered the response you'll find if you check inthe comments section, filled with anger directed at "Obama the Eunuch."

I was aware of my own distress as I read and re-read the comment. Some of it came from that part of me that is uncomfortably close to agreement with the content of the writer's argument. It's clear that Obama has been weakened by the unmitigated hostility and adamant rejection with which every part of the agenda on which he was elected has been opposed. It has been relentless and unappeasable, from his first day in office. In my view--perhaps incorrectly--there are many of his supporters who have allowed themselves to be swept up in that hostility, too readily co-opted by the powerful tide of rejectionist action and propaganda. With the erosion of support on his own side, he becomes still more exposed and vulnerable. As I've written before, we on the left, who have learned to distrust authority whatever its source, are prone to the heady delights of king-killing.

That's my view. I find that I hold on to it even more tightly when I myself feel the beginnings of mistrust in it; or, particularly, when I feel it under attack. I pull back in, defensive. Intended or not as such, my correspondent's initial sarcasm and subsequent anger felt like personal animosity, and I withdrew into my shell to mull over its implications. This morning, as I suggested, I paid more than usual attention to my own animosities. I did my best to observe them and then let them go, along with the anger that accompanies them.

I was wondering aloud, at the Buddhist Geeks conference just a few days ago, whether anger ever serves a useful purpose. I believe it can, when it is directed with clear intention and used skillfully; to do so, I must understand what part of the anger is about me, and what part is genuinely about the injustice or malpractice that aroused it. Warrior energy is a necessary part of political action--see Sun Tzu's "The Art of War"--but used indiscriminately and tainted by personal animosity, it can be counter-productive.

The image of a solitary Obama signing a bill which clearly fell far short of his objectives--and equally short of my own sense of what is needed in our current economic crisis--filled me with sadness for both the man and the country that he seeks to serve. He is the target of so many millions of deeply divisive projections that he can scarcely hope to live up to more than a handful of them. There are those, of course, many, who wish him nothing but ill. And there are those, many, who feel that he has let them down; that he is not the man they took him for. I'm only surprised that he manages to tolerate with a semblance of grace the generous heapings of scorn that are dumped on him from both left and right.

I personally think that this would be a good time for us all to take a thoughtful look at our projections: if we think of Obama as the mirror, what is it that we see about ourselves when we look at him? The projection of blame is too easy an answer for our troubles. We have our own share of responsibility for the dreadful mess in which the country finds itself. As another correspondent wrote to me in an email today, "I'm highly disgusted with what's going on in Congress right now, [but] I have to keep reminding myself that we DO live in a democracy, don't we?"

We do. Well, I sometimes think rather that we live in an oligarchy that survives by successfully disguising itself as a democracy (I first typed "demoncracy"!) But, yes, we do. So we do not further our cause by trying to wish away or ignore the existence of the deep and powerful strain of conservatism that has been changing the balance of the American political system, not just in Obama's time but, with increasing power, these past several decades. Like it or not (I don't!), it's impossible to move in any direction without taking it into account. All very well to stand by and jeer at Obama's perceived lack of leadership from the sidelines. He's trying to quarterback a team that plays by the rules of human decency and fairness against bunch of steroid-powered thugs who don't care what tactics they use--or how many injuries are incurred--so long as they dominate the game. (Is this animosity? Or simple realism?)

I know that I'm in a growing minority in a cacophony of voices noisier and I'm sure far more effective than my own. I suspect, though, in a less demonstrable way, that I may be a part of a new "silent majority" that continues to support the President despite the ferocity of the attack. I will not yet surrender the "I Back Barack" bumper sticker on my car. Nor will I cease sending daily wishes of good will to both him and his opponents. And the same to my "anonymous" correspondent, whom I thank for challenging me to think again, again. I send out metta in full consciousness of the adverse circumstance, if only to preserve my own health, and sanity, and self-respect! May all beings be free from animosity...

ADDENDUM

( … to the letter I posted yesterday)

You remember that Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell pronouncement, at the very start of the Obama presidency, to the effect that the top priority of Republicans must be to get rid of him?

It seemed like an outrageous statement at the time, only hours into the new President's tenure, but his party has remained faithful to the literal word of that injunction. Since then, they have proved adamantly obstructive to every initiative and every nomination that the President has made. They have embraced every procedural trick in the Congressional rule book to thwart his legislative agenda. They have voted virtually unanimously, as a bloc, against his every proposal, no matter how inconsequential. They have perverted the political process. They have not hesitated to stoop to personal insult, loudly and in public. They have not been ashamed to accept the chilling embrace of hatred or the fanaticism of extremists when it served their cause in diminishing his power and rendering him vulnerable to attack. They have maligned his every idea with distortions and lies. They have been openly rude, un-generous to a fault, and intolerant. They have gone out of their way to ridicule him personally—and have not even spared his wife. They have been relentless in their attacks on his character as well as on the policies and goals for which he was elected.

In their eagerness to get rid of him, they have maliciously misrepresented him to voters. They won the mid-term elections with promises they have not attempted to fulfill, relying instead on their ability to foment still greater dissatisfaction and distrust among their followers. They have on multiple occasions arrogantly spurned the genuinely friendly hand held out to them, preferring instead to humble with their disdain the man who generously held it out.

In all this, Obama has managed to retain his dignity and poise. He has been consistently statesman-like in both speech and action. He has declined all opportunities to descend to the level of those attacking him, and has been unfailingly respectful of even the hostile and opinionated views of others. He has invited the opinion of opponents and has been willing—some would say too willing—to find grounds for compromise. He has for the most part brushed aside insult with quiet humor and politeness. Accused of weakness, he has shown strength, decisiveness, and remarkable courage. Accused of remaining silent on important issues, he has wisely demonstrated the value of biding his time and speaking forcefully at the right moment. He has shown infinite patience with detractors to left and right. He frankly admits to his mistakes and acknowledges—indeed, shares—the disappointments and frustration of many of those who supported him.

Given his ability to negotiate obstacles placed in his way, I am astounded that he has managed to achieve as much as he has done thus far. I support his re-election not out of resignation that the other side only offers worse, but because I believe that he still has the vision that most nearly reflects my own, along with the determination to do everything in his power to make it happen. I am encouraged by yesterday’s news about the extraordinarily successful initial fund-raising for his campaign—a success that will undoubtedly be used to denigrate him further, and sadly by both political opponents and many of my friends on the left. I am hearted to know, in view of dire predictions that he has alienated his political base, that his campaign has managed to attract hundreds of thousands of new supporters, and that the modesty of the majority of donations suggests a groundswell of grass roots support that will confound accepted political wisdom.

I believe, in short, that there is a new "silent majority" of Americans who share my view of Obama and who will come out to vote for him. Republicans may believe that they can fool enough of the people enough of the time to achieve McConnell's goal. I myself believe that they are only just now beginning to reap the bitter harvest that is ripening from the rotten seeds they have sown.

A Note to a Friend

Here's an email I sent this morning to a friend, following a heated exchange last evening at a group meeting that we both attended. My friend was clearly deeply disappointed with Obama, as were several others on hand, and her disappointment found expression in scathing anger. I did not offer much in the way of a response at the time, partly because I believe that heat trumps reason in such circumstances--and we need reason more than heat. I dropped her this line this morning:

Dear .....

My apologies for not having had the energy to enter into the debate last night, but I believe that your anger at Obama is misdirected. You are in danger, as I see it, of being manipulated by a clever Republican/corporate strategy to have their way and blame the president for the results. The Republican Senate leader's latest solution to the debt ceiling crisis is a perfect example: pass a bill allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling over the objections of the Congress!

I myself believe that the president is doing what he can to abide by his own principles--those he was perfectly clear and honest about when he ran for election. As Maya Angelou observed, it is not so much a matter of Obama abandoning his supporters as they abandoning him.

Though I understand the frustration in today's poisonous political scene, it distresses me greatly to see my fellow progressive/democratic/socialist thinkers lash out against the man who comes closest to representing our vision of a better country. It only adds to the toxicity, and serves the interests of those who seek to control and profit from the inaction you identify. Could it be that, unwittingly, your anger is being stoked and manipulated by the very interests you oppose?

Best, Peter

The Value of Nuance... Another Voice

I put in a note the other day about the value of nuance. On the same topic, here's the great pianist, Emmanuel Ax, in a letter in today's New York Times. It's a response to last week's snarky column by Maureen Dowd. I trust the President knows there are many of us out here in the "reality-based world" who do value nuance, and understand it to be essential to good government. It is not, as some take it to be, a sign of weakness (read The Art of War!) but rather one of intelligence and respect, both qualities in which a large number of our politicians are noticeably lacking.

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.