Saturday, June 29, 2013
The id Post: What a Week it's Been: America's Equal Protection ...
The id Post: What a Week it's Been: America's Equal Protection ...: On Monday, I was preparing my blog for the week on affirmative action and the latest Supreme Court ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas a...
What a Week it's Been: America's Equal Protection Roller Coaster Ride
On Monday, I was preparing my blog for the week on affirmative action and the latest Supreme Court ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin; but could barely catch my breath and focus, when the rulings later in the week took me for an emotional roller coaster ride, political junkie style. And then, as did much of the nation on a lazy summer day, I became fascinated with the testimony of Rachel Jeantel in the Zimmerman murder trial in Florida, and its serendipitous juxtaposition to the Paula Deen undoing. And as if that wasn't enough news upon which to feast as a writer, the U.S. Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill. Truly an embarrassment of critical thinking riches. Where to begin?
I intend to post a more in-depth discussion of the Fisher case in my next blog. It's too important of an issue, and the majority's deliberate state of unknowing to huge for just a paragraph or two. But it did start off my week with a great sigh of relief that it was not dismantled all together. That was, of course, until the following day, when the same court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Roberts court is even worse than the Rehnquist court in siding with big business, and against Civil Rights; but not nearly as jurisprudentially skillful. Conservatives often complain of the judicial activism of the Earl Warren court, but this decision is beyond anything we saw from the Warren and Rehnquist courts combined.
Judicial activism occurs when a court replaces the law, deliberated and passed by congress, with its own judgment, and with little or no legal precedent. The court suggested that the data used to map the areas that needed preclearance before these certain jurisdictions could alter their voting laws under §4 of the Act was outdated, and reflected a different time in America. However, the Voting Rights Act contains sunset provisions requiring its reauthorization after certain periods of time, the last being in 2006. In that year, a congress led by Republicans in both houses, conducted hearings, heard testimony and reviewed data regarding the status of voting rights for racial minorities, as well as the effects of the Voting Rights Act, prior to overwhelmingly passing its reauthorization. It was then signed into law by a conservative Republican president. And yet, a mere seven years later, Justice Roberts knows better than a duly elected congress, and believes that his judgment and that of four of his colleagues, none of whom showed any sympathy for the lives of people who stood in line for hours just to vote, should be the law instead. And in that seven years, the GOP aggressiveness in voter suppression has gotten far worse than it was in 2006, not better. It's as if these Americans don't really matter, because Chief Justice Roberts declares that racism is over now.
I barely had time to grieve, for the following day this Supreme Court shocked me to silliness with the decisions on DOMA and Prop 8, wherein the court largely decided not to decide. California's Prop 8 was refused a ruling on marriage equality because the court ducked the issue, ruling that the proponents lacking standing, or the right to bring the matter before the court. The appeal was taken up by private pro prop 8ers when Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to defend it in court on behalf of the State of California. Since the appellants could show no harm done to themselves, they lacked the requisite right to sue. A real dodge for the court.
In striking down DOMA, the court granted federal equal protection to same-sex couples, but did not impose the same upon the states. Which means, of course, that despite the conservative warnings of impending doom, due to the wrath of a loving and forgiving God, as well as the rejoicing this week here in California, this fight is clearly not over. For what of the equal protection of same-sex couples who marry in one state where their marriage is legally recognized, and then move to another where their union is not? To be continued; but so far, so good.
In the midst of the emotional roller coaster ride of Supreme Court rulings, there was the trial of Robert Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin in Florida; as well as the televised and tweeted circus of the Paula Deen meltdown for admitting to using the n-word. Even as I write these words, it seems surreal to me to have this triad of events noted in one sentence. Yes, the week was pretty action-packed for nerds like me.
The testimony of prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel in the Zimmerman trial further demonstrated the seemingly escalating culture clash here in the land of the free; a clash of immutable characteristics, and how our laws affect those who possess such characteristics, with white conservative America. The racial implications in this case are painfully obvious, as is the fact that non-white people see white people very differently than they see themselves, and visa versa. It was somewhat reminiscent of the OJ Simpson trial, and how racially polarizing that case still is in our country. The social media universe was, as usual, full of empty-headed comments, some quite malicious and ugly, and mostly devoid of any real insight, about the quality and veracity of her testimony.
While Ms. Jeantel may present culturally differently than many of us, she is, nonetheless, a teenager who is struggling through a very difficult tragedy in her young life. I know that good trial attorneys may employ a lot of tricks of the trade to get what they want out of a witness, and Mr. West employed many of them. However, I think the testimony went on for far too long. The second day was all about trying to trip her up, which did not succeed; and to make her doubt herself, which also did not succeed. For this young woman stood her ground amidst it all and consistently, and often very assertively, testified in a very genuine and authentic manner, about some of the most crucial facts of this case. The great contrast between Mr. West and Ms. Jeantel -- in race, culture, education, wealth-class, age -- is the image that remains. I wonder how an almost all white jury of all women, most of whom are mothers, will weigh her testimony. Stay tuned.
And then there was the Paula Deen descent into drama queen of the week. I am not without sympathy or empathy for Paula Deen; and in response to the question being circulated on social media, yes, of course she should be forgiven, and we have all said stupid things in our past, and nobody's perfect. Cool. Got that. However, marketing is not about forgiveness; and there is a difference between forgiveness and reconciliation. We forgive to free ourselves of a draining anger and resentment. Reconciliation is beyond forgiveness and involves asking to be forgiven, admitting the wrong and vowing to change. Paula Deen has made it clear that she is not going to change, and therefore cannot be reconciled with a marketplace for her talent, because racism just doesn't sell like it used to in this greatly more diverse 21st century America. Corporate sponsors are now avoiding her like the plague, lest they wear the racist "cone of shame," and lose money right along with her.
Thus, it appears that Paula Deen is a prisoner of her own white supremacist background and upbringing. This is not about just one word used at one time. It is about her white supremacist attitude, as evidenced by her heart's desire of a plantation wedding, complete with dark-skinned servers -- just like pre-Civil War days. Moreover, she is still lamenting her great-grandfather's tragedy of having land, but no one to work it after the Civil War, and how that devastated him. Who would you rather be in that moment? A newly freed slave? Or a white property owner with no slaves? Clearly it was a national tragedy for all concerned, but prioritizing one's sympathies for those who lost free labor, over those enslaved, who lost considerably more, is just a very ugly pity party.
And finally, there was more good news this week coming out of the Senate, as they passed a comprehensive immigration bill. The celebration was once again short-lived, as House Speaker John Boehner announced that this miracle bill was dead on arrival in the House. So much for that GOP outreach to Latinos.
What does it all mean? For one thing, it appears that the GOP is doubling down on pursuing the conservative white vote, while passing laws restricting voter access to ethnic minorities, students, and poor people. This may work for them to some extent in 2014, and possibly 2016; but beyond those election cycles, this strategy will backfire in a big way, and with long-term consequences. This is doubly true regarding the Latino vote if congress doesn't pass some kind of meaningful immigration reform this session. This is not just a liberal wish, it is already written on the wall. The Republican party cannot spend the next 2 -- 4 years aggressively working to limit Democratic participation in our democracy, and then expect too many of those Democratic and Independent voters, i.e., youth and ethnic minorities, to turn around and vote for them when they run out of old white people -- and they will run out of old white people eventually. This is not about ideology. This is just plain math. If they continue to alienate anyone who is not white, "Christian," conservative and wealthy, it will take at least a generation to get them back, if they ever do.
Well, Mr. Chief Justice, maybe racism isn't gone after all. Perhaps it will take a major demographic shift, which is coming, to wash away our racist past and present.
What a week!
I intend to post a more in-depth discussion of the Fisher case in my next blog. It's too important of an issue, and the majority's deliberate state of unknowing to huge for just a paragraph or two. But it did start off my week with a great sigh of relief that it was not dismantled all together. That was, of course, until the following day, when the same court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Roberts court is even worse than the Rehnquist court in siding with big business, and against Civil Rights; but not nearly as jurisprudentially skillful. Conservatives often complain of the judicial activism of the Earl Warren court, but this decision is beyond anything we saw from the Warren and Rehnquist courts combined.
Judicial activism occurs when a court replaces the law, deliberated and passed by congress, with its own judgment, and with little or no legal precedent. The court suggested that the data used to map the areas that needed preclearance before these certain jurisdictions could alter their voting laws under §4 of the Act was outdated, and reflected a different time in America. However, the Voting Rights Act contains sunset provisions requiring its reauthorization after certain periods of time, the last being in 2006. In that year, a congress led by Republicans in both houses, conducted hearings, heard testimony and reviewed data regarding the status of voting rights for racial minorities, as well as the effects of the Voting Rights Act, prior to overwhelmingly passing its reauthorization. It was then signed into law by a conservative Republican president. And yet, a mere seven years later, Justice Roberts knows better than a duly elected congress, and believes that his judgment and that of four of his colleagues, none of whom showed any sympathy for the lives of people who stood in line for hours just to vote, should be the law instead. And in that seven years, the GOP aggressiveness in voter suppression has gotten far worse than it was in 2006, not better. It's as if these Americans don't really matter, because Chief Justice Roberts declares that racism is over now.
I barely had time to grieve, for the following day this Supreme Court shocked me to silliness with the decisions on DOMA and Prop 8, wherein the court largely decided not to decide. California's Prop 8 was refused a ruling on marriage equality because the court ducked the issue, ruling that the proponents lacking standing, or the right to bring the matter before the court. The appeal was taken up by private pro prop 8ers when Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to defend it in court on behalf of the State of California. Since the appellants could show no harm done to themselves, they lacked the requisite right to sue. A real dodge for the court.
In striking down DOMA, the court granted federal equal protection to same-sex couples, but did not impose the same upon the states. Which means, of course, that despite the conservative warnings of impending doom, due to the wrath of a loving and forgiving God, as well as the rejoicing this week here in California, this fight is clearly not over. For what of the equal protection of same-sex couples who marry in one state where their marriage is legally recognized, and then move to another where their union is not? To be continued; but so far, so good.
In the midst of the emotional roller coaster ride of Supreme Court rulings, there was the trial of Robert Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin in Florida; as well as the televised and tweeted circus of the Paula Deen meltdown for admitting to using the n-word. Even as I write these words, it seems surreal to me to have this triad of events noted in one sentence. Yes, the week was pretty action-packed for nerds like me.
The testimony of prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel in the Zimmerman trial further demonstrated the seemingly escalating culture clash here in the land of the free; a clash of immutable characteristics, and how our laws affect those who possess such characteristics, with white conservative America. The racial implications in this case are painfully obvious, as is the fact that non-white people see white people very differently than they see themselves, and visa versa. It was somewhat reminiscent of the OJ Simpson trial, and how racially polarizing that case still is in our country. The social media universe was, as usual, full of empty-headed comments, some quite malicious and ugly, and mostly devoid of any real insight, about the quality and veracity of her testimony.
While Ms. Jeantel may present culturally differently than many of us, she is, nonetheless, a teenager who is struggling through a very difficult tragedy in her young life. I know that good trial attorneys may employ a lot of tricks of the trade to get what they want out of a witness, and Mr. West employed many of them. However, I think the testimony went on for far too long. The second day was all about trying to trip her up, which did not succeed; and to make her doubt herself, which also did not succeed. For this young woman stood her ground amidst it all and consistently, and often very assertively, testified in a very genuine and authentic manner, about some of the most crucial facts of this case. The great contrast between Mr. West and Ms. Jeantel -- in race, culture, education, wealth-class, age -- is the image that remains. I wonder how an almost all white jury of all women, most of whom are mothers, will weigh her testimony. Stay tuned.
And then there was the Paula Deen descent into drama queen of the week. I am not without sympathy or empathy for Paula Deen; and in response to the question being circulated on social media, yes, of course she should be forgiven, and we have all said stupid things in our past, and nobody's perfect. Cool. Got that. However, marketing is not about forgiveness; and there is a difference between forgiveness and reconciliation. We forgive to free ourselves of a draining anger and resentment. Reconciliation is beyond forgiveness and involves asking to be forgiven, admitting the wrong and vowing to change. Paula Deen has made it clear that she is not going to change, and therefore cannot be reconciled with a marketplace for her talent, because racism just doesn't sell like it used to in this greatly more diverse 21st century America. Corporate sponsors are now avoiding her like the plague, lest they wear the racist "cone of shame," and lose money right along with her.
Thus, it appears that Paula Deen is a prisoner of her own white supremacist background and upbringing. This is not about just one word used at one time. It is about her white supremacist attitude, as evidenced by her heart's desire of a plantation wedding, complete with dark-skinned servers -- just like pre-Civil War days. Moreover, she is still lamenting her great-grandfather's tragedy of having land, but no one to work it after the Civil War, and how that devastated him. Who would you rather be in that moment? A newly freed slave? Or a white property owner with no slaves? Clearly it was a national tragedy for all concerned, but prioritizing one's sympathies for those who lost free labor, over those enslaved, who lost considerably more, is just a very ugly pity party.
And finally, there was more good news this week coming out of the Senate, as they passed a comprehensive immigration bill. The celebration was once again short-lived, as House Speaker John Boehner announced that this miracle bill was dead on arrival in the House. So much for that GOP outreach to Latinos.
What does it all mean? For one thing, it appears that the GOP is doubling down on pursuing the conservative white vote, while passing laws restricting voter access to ethnic minorities, students, and poor people. This may work for them to some extent in 2014, and possibly 2016; but beyond those election cycles, this strategy will backfire in a big way, and with long-term consequences. This is doubly true regarding the Latino vote if congress doesn't pass some kind of meaningful immigration reform this session. This is not just a liberal wish, it is already written on the wall. The Republican party cannot spend the next 2 -- 4 years aggressively working to limit Democratic participation in our democracy, and then expect too many of those Democratic and Independent voters, i.e., youth and ethnic minorities, to turn around and vote for them when they run out of old white people -- and they will run out of old white people eventually. This is not about ideology. This is just plain math. If they continue to alienate anyone who is not white, "Christian," conservative and wealthy, it will take at least a generation to get them back, if they ever do.
Well, Mr. Chief Justice, maybe racism isn't gone after all. Perhaps it will take a major demographic shift, which is coming, to wash away our racist past and present.
What a week!
Thursday, June 20, 2013
The id Post: Small government? No thanks, I Want a Government t...
The id Post: Small government? No thanks, I Want a Government t...: I have to admit that I can never understand advocating for a government small enough to drown in a bathtub. What sense does this make? W...
Small government? No thanks, I Want a Government that is Big Enough
I have to admit that I can never understand advocating
for a government small enough to drown in a bathtub. What sense does this make?
We all tweet and text our opinions on hand-held devices made possible by a
government big enough to invest in research and innovation that cost too much
money for the private sector to advance on its own. How astonishing that people
do not seem to get the connection between modern technology and the United
States government’s investment in the very expensive, trial-and-error of
science and space exploration.
I hear people tell obvious falsehoods, designed to
mislead an audience that is free to tune in or not, on airways built, licensed
and regulated by the very state railed against; and never shut down for the
outlandish things they say. I hear
people boast of being “self-made” for creating a marketable object that is
shipped across the country on railroads built by slaves and exploited
immigrants from all over the world, especially the Chinese and Irish. This self-made
individual drives home on roads paved by the state, lighted by power made
possible by grids designed and built with state resources, reads an un-censored
newspaper and eats food harvested mostly by Mexican immigrants, many of
uncertain legal status, and rendered fit for consumption by a state agency that
has inspected it; all so that this self-made individual may arrive safely at
her home and consume a meal that will not poison her. Self-made? Maybe when you
dig your own well for water, maintain your own cesspool, drive your own trash
to the dump and have to pay someone to ensure the safety of your premises, then
maybe; but other permanent state resources will always be impossible to avoid
for anyone who has enjoyed success in these United States.
It is big government that lays the foundation for anybody’s success
in this country, one way or another. What is so wrong about that? One of the biggest contributing factors to
American success is ownership of property, and specifically the manner in which
we set up a system for recording deeds and other relevant property records. In
many countries, it is often impossible to ascertain who owns the property, rendering
it unavailable for development. I want a government big enough to organize and
build the public infrastructure that we all use to provide opportunity for
advancement and to improve our lives.
I want a government big enough to keep me safe and protect
me from that which would harm me, A government small enough to drown in a
bathtub would have been overrun by fascists in the 1930s and 40s. The Nazi
leadership was well-schooled in American geography and were already prepared to
divvy it up; had it not been for our government, that was big enough to defeat
them, as well as the Empire of Japan after attacking Pearl Harbor. A small
government would not have returned from WWII as victors.
I want a government big enough to evolve and atone
for past mistakes, like slavery and the legalized and institutionalized white
supremacy that enabled it; the effects of which are still being felt today. I
want a country big enough to apologize for the shameful internment of
Japanese-American citizens, and to make amends to them. And when that bad habit of racism refuses to
yield, I want to a government big enough to get George Wallace out of that
schoolhouse door.
I want a government big enough to protect me from
those who would exploit me, by ripping me off or refusing to honor a promise.
Where are citizens supposed to go to seek redress for damages done to them, if
not to an impartial public court, organized under a set of laws and rules
written by a duly elected congress? Who else is supposed to do these things?
Who are we to trust if not ourselves? For that is what elections are supposed
to be all about. When we vote, we are choosing who we want to hire to worry
about all of these things, so that we can go about our lives. That is what a
representative democracy, or a republic, is. We choose people we trust to be our voice.
And when my fellow Americans find themselves without
– without food, shelter or medical care – I want a government big enough to
care. Whether by personal circumstances, economic conditions or natural
disasters, there are families out there without what my mother used to call, “the
barely necessities” -- food, electicity, running water, shelter. We did without
a lot of those barely necessities when I was growing up, and we had a
government that cared about our lack of resources and opportunities. I had the
Great Society, which provided us with food, jobs and educational opportunities
where there had been none.I want a government big enough to invest in its citizens, especially those without opportunity, and smart enough to discern the distinction between an investment and a hand-out. Whatever resources the Great Society invested in my family have been more than re-paid. By investing in my brothers and me, big government provided the foundation for three future tax payers and job creators. In the final analysis, all the money we’ve paid in taxes (from the time we were teenagers), the jobs we created or helped to create, the hours of tutoring and volunteering we have all done, more than outweighs the initial cost to the Great Society. Moreover, we were inspired to become better citizens and to give back to our community, as our community gave to us.
I want a government big enough to include all of us,
and to realize that we are still growing into the greatness of our ideals;
pushing forward instead of scaring its citizens into believing that we were all
better off once upon a time that never existed. I want a government big enough
lead the whole world in many ways, rather than settling into mediocrity. I want a government big enough to plant an American flag on the surface of the moon, a whole bunch of times.
Small government and super power cannot exist in the
same entity. As I watched President Obama commanding the respect of other world
leaders this week, and cheered on by thousands of global citizens, I was glad
that my United States government was big enough to have influenced many
historic events which made that moment possible.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
The id Post: Privacy, Smivacy: We Gave It Up A Long Time Ago
The id Post: Privacy, Smivacy: We Gave It Up A Long Time Ago: No, I don’t like it, and yes, I am more than mildly concerned. However in the midst of all the bru-ha-ha about the NSA activi...
Privacy, Smivacy: We Gave It Up A Long Time Ago
No, I don’t like it, and yes, I am more than mildly
concerned. However in the midst of all the bru-ha-ha about the NSA activities and
what they know or don’t know about us, quite frankly, I think that horse has
already left the barn. That horse trotted out of the barn in full view of all
Americans, celebrated and heralded greatly, in the guise of the post 9/11
Patriot Act. I’d be surprised, maybe even insulted, even if I didn’t have an
FBI file by now; bleeding heart activist that I am. I pretty much figure that
any communication anywhere, anytime, or by any medium other than face to face
conversation, is probably recorded and available to people I don’t know. Again,
I’m not saying I like it, I’m just saying it is so.
Privacy
is one of those rights that is unspecified in the Constitution, and thus is
often ambiguous in applying and interpreting the laws regarding what is and is
not sacred. The 4th amendment declares that U.S. citizens are to be
free from unreasonable search and seizure, which of course begs the question:
What is reasonable? In the face of fear, this reasonable standard is easily
manipulated; the Patriot Act a case in point.
I was
one of those people who were deeply concerned at the passage of the Patriot Act
and the manner in which so many Americans were willing to sacrifice their
freedoms, which have taken generations to improve toward a nebulous perfection,
at the altar of national security. Wasn’t it Ben Franklin, one of our smartest
and most respected founders, who warned us that a citizenry that is willing to
sacrifice freedom for safety will have neither, and deserves neither? My leftist
friends and I just shook our heads.
I
recall an incident some years ago, at the end of the Bush administration and
several years after the Patriot Act was enacted, I was visited by a very dear
friend of mine from out of state. He and his teenage daughter were checking out
local colleges at the time, and they stayed with us for a night or two. I had
given him a key to the house, which he forgot to return before their departure.
He mailed it back to me a few days later.
Now
my friend is a writer, and a liberal one at that, who lives in a very
conservative area of the country. He chooses to live and write there because he
feels needed in that community. It also makes him a target. He is on some kinda
list somewhere for sure. Every time he, or his wife and daughter, fly anywhere,
they are searched and singled out for special and heightened scrutiny. Every
time. And when my key arrived in the mail to my home, the envelope encasing it
had been opened and taped back shut. It doesn’t take much critical thinking to
connect the dots here. Somebody messed with that envelope because they wanted
to know what was inside.
Can
I prove it? No, of course not. Might it have been opened accidentally; just
coincidently? It’s possible, sure, but what do the facts suggest? I never
complained or did anything about it because who would listen? Who would care?
At a time when people are practically willing to subject themselves to rectal
exams just to get on an airplane, what’s a girl to do? Add another note to my
FBI file?
My
point is that, like many of the problems we face today, we created this monster
when we hardly made a peep at the time when it was all going down. We, the
people, tend to overreact to problems, forcing remedies that much of the time
exacerbate, rather than solve those problems. I remember watching our Congress
give the Bush administration everything it asked for after 9/11 without so much
as a debate. Whether it was appropriating $20 billion here and there, and
authorizing mostly unwarranted invasions into American homes and conversations,
we were pretty much of one voice, confusing the emotions of fear, trauma and compassion
with responsible governing.
We
did this to ourselves. Wake up, America! Once these rights start getting
whittled down, it is really, really hard to get them back. It’s not too late, but
it’s time to fish or cut bait, i.e., let your voice be heard now, or you may be
invited by your government to forever hold your peace.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
The id Post: Farewell Frank Lautenberg: Farewell To Our America...
The id Post: Farewell Frank Lautenberg: Farewell To Our America...: Senator Frank Lautenberg was the last surviving veteran of WWII to serve in our United States Congress. I mention this not only to honor him...
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Farewell Frank Lautenberg: Farewell To Our American Hearth
Senator Frank Lautenberg was the last surviving veteran of WWII to serve in our United States Congress. I mention this not only to honor him and his service to our country, but to lament the passing of something even greater -- a binding experience of American commonality; a common cause around which to rally. Our American hearth.
Growing up in the 1960s, I remember reading about congressional activity with great interest at a time when, like now, so much was changing. Even though the issues were very controversial and debates very heated, there seemed to be an invisible line that these gentlemen statesmen (and they were all men) just did not cross. For the most part, they minded their manners and backed off when they knew they were losing, enabling cooperation and compromise in passing historic legislation and moving our nation forward. They were patriots before they were Republicans or Democrats. Sadly, loyalty to a political party now trumps loyalty to our fellow Americans.
Then Senator Obama spoke of our ever increasing political hostilities in his book, The Audacity of Hope, and suggested that one reason for the lack of civility was that there are fewer reminders of our past common greatness; such as WWII. In the 1950s and 60s, nearly every person serving in Congress had served in WWII. This immediate memory of brothers in arms against a common enemy made it easier to see those on the other side of the aisle, not as mortal enemies, but only temporary ones. The debater on the floor was also a fellow veteran, an ally in defeating fascism and saving our Republic.
In the 1960s there was the additional thrill of the space program and the race to the moon. I remember how truly out of this world it all seemed. We were at the top of our game, at the top of the world. We had just saved the world from a brutal dictatorship, and went on to plant an American flag on the moon. Here again, we were united against a common enemy and beat the Soviets to the moon. We were Americans, and we were great!
So, what happened? While it is true that there is a greater diversity of all kinds in our current congress -- diversity of backgrounds, ethnicities and ideas -- this diversity demonstrates a greater commitment to our founding principles, and should enhance our sense of patriotism. The fact that there are now more women in congress has proven to be a real benefit, as they are the ones most engaged at present in reaching across the aisle to the other party.
While accommodating new voices and ideas requires adjustments, we have been electing a more diverse congress for decades now, so this alone cannot be a major culprit in creating the discord we have now. The last truly unifying event that we experienced together as a nation was 9/11. American flags were everywhere, people were treating one another with kindness and compassion, and we all felt the enormous pain of our great loss. It is unfortunate that this good feeling and sense of commonality was too short-lived due to the controversial manner in which we invaded Iraq. Before long, the compassion we shared with one another and that the world lavished upon us after the attack, had turned into 1960s-style protests against the war. Even natural disasters are now sources of controversy, it seems. Didn't we all used to agree about disaster relief?
So, how do we get it back? Is it going to take another plane flying into a building? A dirty bomb? Nuclear holocaust? The end of the world? Is it only in the face of terror that we can unite and call one another sister and brother? Do we need a new common enemy? If so, what or who? Our enemies are not as easily identifiable as they used to be. How do we get our American Mojo back?
This may sound like a lame suggestion, but how about rejoicing in our greatness, past and future? Do we need a greater reason to see one another as patriots than just having the honor of calling ourselves and one another American? I know that every American has their own idea of what patriotism is. Even though I often abhor the comments I hear, I am really happy that people care enough to want in on the discussion; the ongoing discussion of what it means to be American. It is sad to me that more people don't participate in our great and ongoing American experiment.
I really like the word 'hearth.' For me, it brings a sense of a gathering around, of family, of commonality. Where is our American hearth? I hope we don't need to be invaded from outer space in order to find it again. I miss it. I think we all do, and that is why we will all miss Frank Lautenberg.
Growing up in the 1960s, I remember reading about congressional activity with great interest at a time when, like now, so much was changing. Even though the issues were very controversial and debates very heated, there seemed to be an invisible line that these gentlemen statesmen (and they were all men) just did not cross. For the most part, they minded their manners and backed off when they knew they were losing, enabling cooperation and compromise in passing historic legislation and moving our nation forward. They were patriots before they were Republicans or Democrats. Sadly, loyalty to a political party now trumps loyalty to our fellow Americans.
Then Senator Obama spoke of our ever increasing political hostilities in his book, The Audacity of Hope, and suggested that one reason for the lack of civility was that there are fewer reminders of our past common greatness; such as WWII. In the 1950s and 60s, nearly every person serving in Congress had served in WWII. This immediate memory of brothers in arms against a common enemy made it easier to see those on the other side of the aisle, not as mortal enemies, but only temporary ones. The debater on the floor was also a fellow veteran, an ally in defeating fascism and saving our Republic.
In the 1960s there was the additional thrill of the space program and the race to the moon. I remember how truly out of this world it all seemed. We were at the top of our game, at the top of the world. We had just saved the world from a brutal dictatorship, and went on to plant an American flag on the moon. Here again, we were united against a common enemy and beat the Soviets to the moon. We were Americans, and we were great!
So, what happened? While it is true that there is a greater diversity of all kinds in our current congress -- diversity of backgrounds, ethnicities and ideas -- this diversity demonstrates a greater commitment to our founding principles, and should enhance our sense of patriotism. The fact that there are now more women in congress has proven to be a real benefit, as they are the ones most engaged at present in reaching across the aisle to the other party.
While accommodating new voices and ideas requires adjustments, we have been electing a more diverse congress for decades now, so this alone cannot be a major culprit in creating the discord we have now. The last truly unifying event that we experienced together as a nation was 9/11. American flags were everywhere, people were treating one another with kindness and compassion, and we all felt the enormous pain of our great loss. It is unfortunate that this good feeling and sense of commonality was too short-lived due to the controversial manner in which we invaded Iraq. Before long, the compassion we shared with one another and that the world lavished upon us after the attack, had turned into 1960s-style protests against the war. Even natural disasters are now sources of controversy, it seems. Didn't we all used to agree about disaster relief?
So, how do we get it back? Is it going to take another plane flying into a building? A dirty bomb? Nuclear holocaust? The end of the world? Is it only in the face of terror that we can unite and call one another sister and brother? Do we need a new common enemy? If so, what or who? Our enemies are not as easily identifiable as they used to be. How do we get our American Mojo back?
This may sound like a lame suggestion, but how about rejoicing in our greatness, past and future? Do we need a greater reason to see one another as patriots than just having the honor of calling ourselves and one another American? I know that every American has their own idea of what patriotism is. Even though I often abhor the comments I hear, I am really happy that people care enough to want in on the discussion; the ongoing discussion of what it means to be American. It is sad to me that more people don't participate in our great and ongoing American experiment.
I really like the word 'hearth.' For me, it brings a sense of a gathering around, of family, of commonality. Where is our American hearth? I hope we don't need to be invaded from outer space in order to find it again. I miss it. I think we all do, and that is why we will all miss Frank Lautenberg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)