Archive for September, 2010
In 1980 Mac Davis, the song writer who penned such hits as “In the Ghetto” and “Don’t Cry Daddy” for Elvis Presley, “Watching Scotty Grow” for Bobby Goldboro, and the oft recorded “I Believe in Music,” hit number three in the charts with his solo “It’s Hard to be Humble.” Today in our first year seminar on America’s future (this unit discussing Anne Marie Slaughter’s book on American values) we discussed humility, something that seems to be lacking in American politics these days. (This also means that two blog entries in a row reference an LP from the year 1980 — that was unplanned!)
Humility means having the strength to acknowledge both ones’ strengths and ones’ weaknesses. It’s not false reluctance to take credit for success, or naively taking the blame for something that’s gone wrong. Humility is honesty, it’s having the capacity to admit mistakes and errors so that one can correct them, and not be afraid to apologize for past misdeeds. Humility comes from strength; the weak man or woman feigns perfection and flawlessness in order to hide what he or she knows will embarrass or cause self-disgust. A strong person can recognize and admit errors, even embarrassing ones.
In this light we talked about the alleged “apologies for America” made by Barack Obama. Oft trumpeted by the right, supposedly President Obama went on a world apology tour, saying America is sorry for all the misdeeds of the past. Now, if that were true, I’d have no problem with that. To be able to apologize is to me a sign of strength, as noted above. But the fact is, there were no apologies made. This right wing “meme” has become so entrenched that almost everyone thinks Obama apologized (and many probably have no problem with that), but he didn’t!
The far right Washington Examiner attempted to document Obama’s “apologies” with a “Top Ten” list. Yet if you read through the list you have several times where Obama admitted the US made mistakes in the past — and most of these are uncontroversial admissions — but never once is there an apology. The audacity to publish such a list when it’s obvious not one apology is there is amazing. Some are even bizarre, like number 6:
“I don’t believe that there is a contradiction between our security and our values. And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure.”
That statement is a statement of fact, almost everyone should be able to agree with it. Or number 2:
“We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.”
To admit that we are not perfect is the same as an apology! To read this list is to laugh at the absurdity of the claims, yet many Americans take it seriously, and find it horrifying that a US President would admit his country was not perfect. In short, many Americans have lost a sense of humility about our country and our values.
That is weakness. Only a weak person fears admitting mistakes. But it’s clear many people prickle from foreign criticism of the US or claims by pundits that we’ve done wrong. To these people admitting error is somehow agreeing with foreign critics and taking an anti-American stand. But just like the person who takes even just criticism as a personal attack, such folk are deeply insecure about the US. They don’t want to ask hard questions because that means people they disagree may have a valid point. Often they claim “such statements make al qaeda’s leaders feel good” or “boost morale” of the enemy. Excuse me? Why would anyone care about how enemies “feel,” as if an enemy “feeling good” is somehow harmful to us. Not only do they likely not notice, but a strong person doesn’t fear that an opponent might feel good and thus choose not to be honest. More important is what we as a country do and how we act, regardless of how others “feel.” I also don’t buy the “boost morale of the enemy” argument. President Obama’s admission that we’re not perfect boosted US prestige because he was stating things that are obvious.
For the US to refuse to admit past misdeeds in Latin America would be pathetic, everyone knows the historical facts, not to acknowledge them would seem not only weak, but petty. If you knew someone who was so afraid that he or she would be seen as weak by others if they admitted any error, and thus they constantly boosted and said only good things about themselves, excusing or ignoring any mistakes, you’d probably not take that person as a friend. It’s arrogance, it’s hubris, and it leads to self-destruction.
At home lack of humility undercuts the very capacity of our democracy to operate. Humility means recognizing that the other side, be it the Democrats or Republicans, have good points and a perspective worthy of considering. Only the arrogant dismiss and demonize the other side, thereby assuring an inability to cooperate or compromise. If our two parties get engulfed by arrogance, and if ideological jihad replaces pragmatic problem solving, we’ll not solve the problems facing the country, and drift into an abyss. Without humility we won’t respect the freedoms of others, tolerate those different than ourselves, see equal opportunity as a goal, and put justice over political whim. Humility is an essential aspect of all our core values; we lose our humility and we lose part of what it means to be an American.
As a superpower, it may have become hard to be humble. Yet humility is essential if we are to come together as a nation to solve the problems we face, and to work with the rest of the world to combat terrorism, address environmental issues, and try to build a peaceful transition to the future.
I’ll end the post quoting the final verse of the Mac Davis song:
I guess you could say I'm a loner, a cowboy outlaw tough and proud. I could have lots of friends if I want to but then I wouldn't stand out from the crowd. Some folks say that I'm egotistical. Hell, I don't even know what that means. I guess it has something to do with the way that I fill out my skin tight blue jeans. Oh Lord it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way, I can't wait to look in the mirror cause I get better looking each day To know me is to love me I must be a hell of a man. Oh Lord it's hard to be humble but I'm doing the best that I can.
The title of the LP caught my eye thirty years ago, as I bought “Nothing Matters and What if it Did?” by John Cougar, without having heard a track from the album or even knowing for sure who John Cougar (later he’d reclaim his true last name of Mellencamp) was. The album is a classic — the music is timeless and fun, even thirty years after it’s September 1980 release. However, I was thinking about it in more philosophical terms – at a fundamental level, I think we take things far too seriously (myself, obviously, included).
Consider: we will forget almost every event of today or this week, no matter how important. We will remember those few major events — the deaths of loved ones or some kind of tragedy like a flood or fire — but most will fade out of mind. Moreover, this life is short, and at some point not too long from now we’ll all be forgotten, and of course eventually the sun will go nova, the earth will be destroyed, and who knows what the state of humankind will be by that point. Our days will be the ancient pre-history of humanity, when we were still barbaric and tied to the planet.
Now, most people smile at that, but don’t take it seriously. Yet if we do…I think it helps get a little perspective. Each day is part of a playing out of history, and every person has tragedies and dramas in life. Every person passes away sooner or later, everything changes, passes, and moves on. At some level, what seems so important to us in our personal lives has minimal importance in the grand scheme of things.
Yet, of course, it does matter. But what matters? I would submit that most of what gets us upset, angry or agitated in every day life does not matter. I’ll get cute with this. Matter does not matter. I’m not even sure if the material is real. What matters, and what seems real to me, are the emotions and ideas people have. It would not matter if I died tomorrow, but what would matter is that my children, family and others would be profoundly affected. It doesn’t matter if my house burns down. What matters is how we experience it and think about it.
OK, you might say, but so what? Isn’t that what gets us upset, mad or sad anyway? Perhaps not. Let’s say my son is playing a game and hurls a hard ball towards the flat screen TV, destroying the screen and causing a considerable amount of financial loss (assuming we replace it). Note: this did not really happen, so what follows is a thought experiment. If the material matters, I get angry with my son, perhaps scream at him because of how serious the damage is, send him to his room, and tell him he’ll have to help pay for a replacement — he needs to learn respect for property and to think about the consequences of his actions. If matter is what matters most, I’ll ignore the obvious anger and shock this would cause him, especially as he was thinking he was just having fun. I’ll instead fixate on the television, be mad at my boy’s carelessness, and dismiss his crying as “well, he should cry, look at what he did.” I might even take it as a personal affront if I identify too much with the material I own — he hurt me by destroying my TV, that shows no respect for his dad!
But if the material is not what matters, then my first reaction might be “oh my God, the TV,” but then I’d look over and likely see him shocked and scared about getting in trouble. I’d realize that the TV does not matter, my son does. I’d figure out how to handle this in a way that doesn’t create emotional turmoil. I’d quickly dismiss the damage to the TV — it’s done, we’ll have to figure out what to do, but it doesn’t matter. Instead, I’d need to focus on how to handle the lessons my son needs to learn. I’d probably say “What just happened?” He’d likely be crying and saying “I didn’t mean it.”
I’d stay stern sounding, get him to realize the cost and consequences for all of us of having the TV broken out of carelessness, and ask him what should be done. He’d probably think up some punishments or cutbacks, and because I didn’t respond with anger, he’d apologize profusely. At that point we’d both have to pick up the mess, talking about how he needs to learn from this. He’d no doubt feel bad, so we’d maybe go get some gelato, and decide how we’re going to break the news to the rest of the family! I could only behave this way if the television did not truly matter to me — it’s a material object that can be replaced or lived without. My son and his experiences matter far more!
In other words, if we focus on people rather than material objects, we won’t let ourselves get thrown off course by thinking of material damage, inconveniences and what we lack. The focus will be on the people in our lives, recognizing everyone makes mistakes and has to learn. The question will be less about punishment (I don’t really think punishment is appropriate if an act is not volitional) and more about learning and how to deal with the consequences (cleaning and contributing to buying something new is a consequence, not a punishment).
In fact, if we don’t make matter the focus and instead focus on people, then angry reactions to family and friends will start to disappear (not that I think we can really do this — I’m thinking in terms of the ideal — we fallible humans will always have moments of weakness).
The material does matter of course, but only in the sense that it is the backdrop for our shared personal experiences. As such, we’re best not fixating on it. When another person dies, though, that’s a reminder that even our material existence has, at base, a lack of real importance. We all die, and when we do the tragedy is not death, it’s the loss of someone with whom we shared experiences, thoughts and emotions. Such loses are an inevitable cost of living in the world in which we find ourselves. We share experiences with others for only a finite time anyway, be it 50 years or five days.
I’m also not diminishing the horror of child soldiers, rape as a weapon, slavery and other human sufferings — it is the human emotions and experiences that matter, these things are horrific because of their painful nature to those who experience it. We should work hard to change things, but instead of focusing on others with anger, the key is to fix the problems. Retribution or conceptions of justice which focus on punishment likely exacerbate the problem rather than solve it. I’d argue it’s an error if the material is taken so seriously that instead of wanting others to change their behavior we want to make them suffer as they have made others suffer. To me it’s more important they recognize they’ve been wrong and change their way of acting.
So “No thing” matters, but “Every one” matters!
Last February I was dismayed when my scale read “222.” 2 is my favorite number, but at 6 ft 0 inches, that’s too much. So I went on a diet, started an exercise routine, and by May 16th — the day we left for the Germany travel course — I was at 190. That was a good 32 pounds lost in three months.
The good news is that I have kept up my exercise routines, now with 5:45 AM step machine workouts, and evening bowflex work outs three times a week. I feel good. The bad news is that my weight has climbed back up to about 196. Moreover, it’s done that despite the fact I am still trying to eat in a healthy manner, limiting both snacks and eating out. Those last belly pounds remain resilient.
Part of it is the amount of weight I already lost this year. You lose more than 10% of your body weight (for me that was about 22 pounds) and your body goes into “starvation mode.” It assumes that some kind of calamity has hit the food supply. The pounds are dropping fast, clearly something must be wrong! And in a state of nature where you struggle for your food rather than struggling to avoid the allure of KFC chicken or Sbarros stuffed pizzas, that was a good thing. In fact, my current weight is back very close to that 10% level (and 222 was a high last February, before that I was stable at about 218 — 196 is exactly 10% less). So I may be at that 10% plateau below which weight loss becomes very difficult.
Yet I want to get down to about 185, or if I can put on some muscle perhaps 190. And I’m not going back to getting half my calories from soyburgers like I did last spring. A month of intense of calorie deprivation like I engaged in last spring could get me there, but I don’t want to do that. I want to find a healthy mode of slow but consistent weight lose and develop habits that will keep me where I want to be.
My problem? I love sweets, I love fatty food, and I find eating vegetables to be a chore. I’ll eat them, but they don’t satisfy me so they can’t replace the foods I like. But when my snacks are ice cream, Ritter Sport candy bars, bread and butter with salami, the calories add up quickly. Worse, I want to eat like the television tells me I should.
Big yummy pieces of pizza full of pepperoni and sausage, stacks of pancakes next to eggs and bacon, a big juicy steak beside a loaded baked potato with a dinner roll. Pasta — pasta with creamy sauces, stuffed with cheese, and preferably three helpings. I want gelato daily, to eat bagels and cream cheese, and to supersize my fries. I want milkshakes. I want delicious breads, well crafted pastries, and lots and lots of butter. I don’t want these things in small quantities at special times, I want them in large quantities multiple times a day!
I see these things on the TV all the time, being eaten by young people with beautiful bodies, showing me how cool pasta in an edible bread bowl really is. The restaurants entice me, telling me that “I deserve a treat,” and of course, I do. Always. That statement is true every time it is made, I deserve something special! I work hard, I help people out, I deserve a treat. A pizza. A DQ blizzard. A Tim Horton’s vanilla cream donut.
At night as I unwind I deserve a drink, maybe two. I deserve to feel relaxed and a bit buzzed as I watch Jon Stewart mock the political class. (And if I have to watch Sarah Palin, then I deserve four or five. ) I also need to snack on popcorn with butter, potato chips, or a little salami sandwich while I unwind. It was a rough day balancing work, kids, grading, etc…I deserve it.
Of course, if I did all that I’d soon be pushing 300 pounds. Eating in America is hard — and hard in a perverse way. It used to be that health was more likely endangered by malnutrition or under-eating. Eating was hard because you had to either grow or trade to ensure a variety of foods, raising animals and then preparing, preserving and rationing your foods as winter came. Bland food is delicious when you’re struggling to survive (I think I understand that judging by how good my Boca soy burgers tasted when I was in my intense diet last spring!)
Now it’s so easy to grab something tasty — often it is also cheap, and often we underestimate the damage it does. Many meat and pasta dishes at common restaurants chime in at 1200 calories or higher. Add drinks, desert, and the complementary bread and butter and it’s easy to walk out of a restaurant 2000 calories richer. If you weigh 150 pounds or less, that’s all you’re allowed for the day without risking weight gain!
There are always temptations — snack foods, breads, cakes…easy to pick up at the store, and easy to munch on over the course of the day. A donut at work, coffee with cream and sugar…it adds up!
To try to keep weight off I have to recognize and keep reminding myself that the food cornucopia that advertisers say I should be able to enjoy is, in fact, an illusion. They’re selling a product, often enhanced by artificial flavors and dyes. The idea that healthy fit people can constantly enjoy these foods while staying fit is not true. I cannot let myself be seduced by the images and temptations on TV, on Main Street, in the mall, or at the grocery store. They are poisonous, filling my taste buds with delight while destroying my health and fitness.
I need to take control. Yes, I like pizza. I like ice cream. And yeah, I’m in this world of plenty and not being an ascetic, I’ll enjoy. But I’ll not enjoy at the ravenous quantity of intake my advertising manipulated emotions cause me to want (or think I deserve). I’ll figure out what I can afford to enjoy, and plan it for maximum pleasure. I’ll savor it, rather than pounding down pizza slice after pizza slice. My superego has to snatch the donut from my id.
Yet even as I type that, I have to fight the Homer Simpson inside who is suddenly thinking “Mmmmm, Pizza and donuts, mmm *drool*…”
The conventional wisdom these days is that the Republicans will almost certainly win majority control of the House of Representatives, perhaps winning as much as 45 to 50 seats, while the Democrats are likely to maintain a small majority in the Senate (recognizing that even a 50-50 split would mean Democratic control). Republicans are more enthusiastic (less likely to stay home in an off year election), motivated, and their supporting groups have money. Moreover, the economy is bad, and whether it was Ronald Reagan in 1982 or Bill Clinton in 1994, a President and his party do not look good when the economy is in the dumps. All the insulting comments about the President seem true; the glory of past campaigns is faded. Or, as James Carville famously put it in the 1992 campaign: “it’s the economy, stupid.”
Yet there are a number of reasons why the story line for this election may be “Democrats surprise prognosticators with smaller than expected loses and clear control over both Houses.” The reason is that while the economy is against them and the Republicans ahead in the polls, the GOP may have peaked, and may in fact be committing some unforced errors that give the Democrats an opportunity to pounce — should they get their act together. Consider the following:
1) The current state of polls. Republicans lead only slightly in the generic ballot (and some put the Democrats ahead), and in many individual races its still too close to call. For instance, in South Dakota a recent poll put the Democrat Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin slightly ahead of her Republican opponent. Yet in most predictions, she’s considered likely to lose — Nate Silver (under forecast center click ‘House’) has her odds of losing at 70% . The reason? Most prognosticators are predicting this to be a “wave” election like 1994, with the Republicans picking up the close races due to more motivated voters and the bandwagon effect.
However, it could also be the case that the Republicans have peaked, and the current infighting about the tea party and GOP insurgent primary winners will both weaken the GOP message and give ammo to the Democrats to point to the Republicans as not credible on the economy. Although the party in power gets the blame, most remember that the problems started with the Republicans in power, and support for the GOP by moderates is hardly overwhelming. If, as the campaign heats up and people start paying attention the GOP message seems shrill and extreme, a lot of people who now say they’ll vote for change will decide their current House or Senate member is a safer bet. There is a real possibility that the late voters will swing the Democrats not the Republicans. If that happens, if the GOP has peaked and under closer scrutiny will appear to many as less credible, then not only is the “wave” assumption wrong, but the final shift could go to the Democrats, not the Republicans.
In such a case, predictions for Republican gains of 45 or so seats could be halved. We could wake up on November 3rd and see Democratic loses of 20 to 25 seats. In the Senate instead of losing seven, the Democrats could lose only three. This sounds like a dramatic shift, but it really isn’t. Assuming these races will be reasonably close (and the polls suggest so), if a Republican “wave” doesn’t occur, and in fact the Democrats have even a small surge late in the campaign, small changes in total vote counts could have a dramatic impact on the final outcome. Moreover, this has happened before. In 1982, under similar economic conditions and with approval ratings even lower than President Obama’s, Ronald Reagan seemed certain to lose his majorities in Congress. Instead, the loses were far less than predicted, and the Republicans were spared an off year election like President Clinton’s Democrats would have in 1994 (when Clinton’s poll numbers were down — again, lower than Obama’s now).
In 1982 the conventional wisdom was predicting a major Democratic victory; in 1994 people had a sense it could be very bad for the Democrats, but the scope of GOP gains was much greater than anticipated. Now people are modeling their 2010 predictions on the 1994 case. But in many ways, including peoples’ expectations about the election, this could be more like 1982 than 1994.
2) The importance of enthusiasm. Every prediction for a Republican wave assumes that Democratic enthusiasm will not grow by November. Yet not only do the Democrats have a lot of money and resources, but their best ally may be the Republicans. The so-called tea party movement has brought extremists out who are saying things that turn off centrists and arouse otherwise less enthused Democrats.
For example, here in the state of Maine tea party favorite Paul Le Page won a crowded primary by having a strong loyal conservative base. Going into a fall election against Democrat Libby Mitchell and a moderately strong third party candidate, Le Page is up in early polling by 15-18%, a solid “likely R” in the Governor’s column. Yet some of his statements about the environment and education, plus a tendency for mean-spirited comments and a personal tax controversy that could stay in the headlines, suggests vulnerability. As independents and Democrats get closer to the election, the chance that they’ll be motivated to “stop LePage” makes this almost certain to be a much closer election than the early polls. Le Page’s current lead comes from being “against the status quo.”
Note two things: even though he still may win, it’s not certain, and few think his poll numbers will stay as high as they currently are. But if analysts are expecting a wave and continued Democratic apathy, models would predict his strength as stable or growing. Repeat this in other places, and one could imagine that even Republicans with apparently comfortable leads (especially in Senate races) could find those vanishing by November, even if they lack the negatives of a Le Page. The point: the wave may already have hit and may be receding because the enthusiasm gap is almost certain to narrow.
3) Uncertainties. Events between now and November 3rd will also certainly impact the election — and in one where so many races are close, unexpected turns of events could have a profound impact on the results.
My point is not to assure Democrats that it ‘won’t be so bad.’ The fascinating thing about this election is one can imagine scenarios which are reasonably likely but very different. The Republicans could pick up 45 seats in the House. The Democrats could hold Republican gains to about 20-25. If the Democrats want the latter result, they should not panic or give in the temptation to operate on the defensive. They need to arouse their voting base, and luckily for them the Republicans are giving them ammunition with which to do so. For the Republicans, the key to having this not be ‘the one that got away,’ is to avoid internal fighting and try to keep the pressure on the Democrats.
It may come down to how well the GOP can defend it’s message: cut taxes and cut spending. In the abstract everyone likes that, and if they can sell that message without having to actually provide too many details, they could end up with maximal gains. That’s a benefit of being in the opposition — you can be vague, while those in power have to defend specific acts and policies. The Democrats have to try to deconstruct the GOP message and raise questions about whether they are serious — and then get maximum mileage out of GOP divisions and sometimes extremist rhetoric. They have to get the voter to think, “gee, the Republicans didn’t do too well before and some of these guys are saying crazy things, I guess I’ll stick with my Representative…”
And as of September 23, 2010 there is still a lot of campaign time and left, and anything can happen.
Today my first year seminar on “The Future of America” was set to discuss the values of equality and justice, the next chapters in the book The Idea that is America by Anne Marie Slaughter. As I was about to start class, students chimed in saying we should watch a Lady Gaga video. Thinking it was an effort to simply inject pop culture into the class, I resisted, until they made clear: a) it addressed the topic; and b) it was a speech delivered Monday in Portland, Maine. I hooked up a student’s computer to the projector and we watched this:
Wow. I found the speech moving and powerful, alongside the great speeches of the civil rights and women’s suffrage movement. Not only is “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” discriminatory, but it’s clearly completely contrary to the values of this country. Lady Gaga is among the likes of Susan B. Anthony and many others who spoke out in a movement to help the US get closer to our founding values.
The Senate, however, did not heed Lady Gaga’s admonition. The effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” failed. More importantly, though, is the absence of the Obama administration from this fight.
President Obama should be leading the fight to repeal “don’t ask don’t tell.” He should be talking about American values and noting that homophobia is not an excuse for discrimination. At this point in our cultural development, there is no excuse for lingering bigotry against gays. Instead, the White House, as seems so often the case, shies away from political controversy and tries to play it safe, issuing proclamations of disappointment that it lost a fight it never even really joined.
President Obama, you’re in a position few people get a chance to enjoy. You can push for your ideals and control the “bully pulpit” for at least the next two years. Don’t play it safe. Learn from Lady Gaga, put principle ahead of pragmatism. Yeah, the polls say the GOP is on the upswing — that’s unavoidable with an economy doing poorly. Don’t let that cause you to shy way from controversy. Do the right thing.
So for now, I’m disappointed with the President, but very impressed with Lady Gaga — and my students for demanding I play that video in class!
Whether discussing theories of international relations, religion, or philosophy, one question that always ensures lively debate is whether or not humans are inherently good or evil. Most often the response turns out to be somewhere in the middle — we do good things and evil things, and there are humans of all flavors. Yet I can’t help but answer that deep down, humans are good because they are a product of nature (or of God, if you so believe).
The Christian response to this would be that humans have “fallen.” But if we look into the Adam and Eve allegory, it becomes a bit unclear how we should take it. Humans have fallen not because they have given in to a change in nature causing them to be evil, but that they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. While in popular parlance that has come to mean an apple, think through what else this can symbolize.
We have a new kitten. The kitten is playful, she is constantly jumping on my lap as I type this, and her behavior is neither good nor evil. She’s jumping on my lap out of self-interest — I was petting her last night for 45 minutes as she sat there, and she apparently likes that. But when she plays she might scratch or bite — at this point she’s small enough that it doesn’t hurt, but she’s not doing that out of malice. I have known cats who seem evil though — who hiss and scratch anyone who comes close to them. One such cat had been in a theater play as a kitten and the high school actors had tormented him — he appeared evil because he had very bad socialization to humans.
But most of the time we don’t attribute evil to animals or pets; they are in nature and acting out of instinct. When they go bad, like a pit bull dog or cats like the one mentioned above, it’s blamed on the owners or instinct going awry. The reason is clear: animals do not know the difference between right and wrong, or good and evil. They are reactive and instinctive. While science shows they have the capacity to reason — at levels we earlier did not expect — it’s not moral or critical reasoning of the kind we have.
But we have knowledge of our actions, and can reflect upon them. Cats in a cat fight are reacting to stimuli, and probably don’t think much about how the other cat feels. We have empathy, we can put ourselves in the place of others. That knowledge separates us from most if not all animal species, and has led to the development of philosophy, religion, and the capacity to leave our world of instinct and nature and construct social realities designed from our imagination and creativity.
As we build words and act, two things happen: a) we see the consequences of our actions, and b) we empathize and emote as we contemplate our acts and the acts of others. Here is where the concept of evil takes root. We see consequences that we know harm others, and that gets magnified by our empathy. We are then are able to imagine what it would be like to be ‘in the other person’s shoes.’ Crudely, we tend to define as evil those acts that lead to consequences that would be distasteful if they were to happen to us, and we see as good those acts which have an impact we would enjoy if done for us.
This seems simple, yet social reality is not simple. Move away from acts where the consequences are clear and direct (murder, rape, theft) and layers of cultural rationalizations and abstractions cloud our vision. All religions and moral codes have clear rules against murder, rape, theft, and physical assault. Yet they also punish, engage in war (though less frequently than people imagine), tax property, and value physical prowess. A soldier can go to war and get a medal for killing people he doesn’t know, even as his society condemns murder.
These rationalizations permeate every layer of our psyches and cultures. Thus we end up constantly engaging in actions which, if done to us, would cause pain. We recognize that at some level, but rationalize an excuse not to label that evil. Here is where we start to lose ourselves. Internal pain, self-loathing, and repression inflict inner wounds that lead people to shut down empathy and fall deeper in a pit of sociopathic behavior. The knowledge of good and evil is inside us, but we harm ourselves when we block it out in order to justify actions we know deep down to be unjustifiable. This can come out in many forms, of course, and people are capable of self-critical reflection to work through their actions and learn not to hate themselves for acts that they know were wrong. Self-forgiveness is a key to mental stability, and probably necessary before other-forgiveness can take place.
So we’re good because we are in nature, but due to our knowledge of the consequences of our acts, plus our ability to empathize, we are able to create the concepts of good and evil, and apply them to ourselves and others. Being imperfect (we make errors in judgment, are prone to emotionally over-react, probably a remnant from our need to flee or fight in nature), we torture ourselves over our mistakes, often without consciously realizing it. (Freud would attribute that our superego, created as a response to our upbringing, what we are taught is good or evil). To stay Freudian, the id is our instinctive playful self, acting in the world to fulfill desires and drives.
In a state of hunter-gatherer or early tribal nature, we are likely to find it easy to build customs and core rules to work through all this. As society becomes complex, the abstractions and rationalizations for acts which create pain in others become harder to deconstruct and combat. Nationalism, ideology, religious extremism, and many other ways of thinking and living obscure our capacity for calm, rational self-reflection and self-critical thought.
So we’re good, but we’ve constructed worlds that make it easy for good people to get sucked into a web of self-delusion and abstract rationalization. One life goal has to be to work through that and examine our own lives and actions self-critically with self-forgiveness, not self-loathing. Then as co-constructors of our social reality, we should act to fight against the abstractions and rationalizations that hide the reality of our actions and choices. Like cats, we are playful rather than evil. It’s just that our play has consequences, and we have the capacity to understand them.
Until recently there was one thing you can count on in politics: the Democratic party will find ways to lose elections through internal division out of touch policy idealism. As the Democrats fight with themselves, the GOP usually develops a kind of internal cohesion in which liberal Northeast Republicans and arch conservative bible belters unite to have a solid front at election time.
How times have changed. The Democrats in both 2006 and 2008 acted with the pragmatism usually associated with the GOP. Not only did they coalesce around a clear message in 2006, benefiting from President Bush’s unpopularity, but in 2008 they put aside a divisive Presidential primary campaign to focus on electing Barack Obama and strengthening Congressional majorities. In the health care debate Speaker Pelosi enforced a kind of disciplined effort to bring the party together to pass reform, a feat many had considered impossible.
The Republicans, on the other hand, are at risk of misplaying the best electoral hand they’ve been dealt in some time. Buoyed by the fact the economy has stayed bad, increasing public pessimism and desire for change, they have engaged in an all out civil war, as the most radical 25% of the party — the energized base — try to take control. Like the liberals in the Democratic party who nominated George McGovern in 1972, they care less about wanting to win then wanting to purge the party of anyone they don’t see as ideologically correct.
This was evident last night when a rather bizarre Christine O’Donnell (masturbation is as bad as adultery, accusations from former campaign workers she’s a fraud, severe personal finance problems) defeated a very electable and reasonably conservative Mike Castle. O’Donnell is virtually un-electable, while Castle was the clear favorite for the November election. By embracing the extremes of the party, the GOP has virtually assured that the Democrats will not only keep the Senate, but that in November the news might be far different than what people now are expecting.
Castle is just the latest of Republican stalwarts being knocked off by the so-called “tea party” movement. But the damage she does might be far greater than just assuring the Democrats keep the Delaware seat once belonging to Vice President Biden. The image the GOP has in America is becoming defined less by cynicism with President Obama’s economic plan, then headlines of Republican infighting and a sense that, as former President Clinton said, “today’s Republicans make George Bush look liberal.”
Though the tea-party folk are convinced Obama harbors a secret socialist agenda, and salivate at Newt Gingrich’s claim he has a “Kenyan anti-colonial” world view (huh?), most Americans don’t want such political theater. As November gets closer, the Democrats best friends are the Republicans.
Americans want cooperation between the parties and pragmatic problem solving. If the GOP were going into the campaign stressing ideas over slogans, and ways of cooperation instead of ideological posturing, the public would embrace them. If a clear message was being sent saying, “We agree with the Democrats there are problems in health care, the US infrastructure, energy and unemployment, and we will use our influence to work with them to find ways to handle these which do not run up more debt and effectively turn the economy around,” it would sound very reasonable.
Instead they lash out against an Islamic community center in Manhattan, continue a barrage of vicious attacks on Obama, and attack their own people who aren’t ideologically pure. Convinced they are leading a massive revolt against the Democrats and “the way things are done in DC,” they mistake their own convictions for widespread public opinion, and may do more damage to the Republican party than seemed possible even a few months ago.
Note to tea partiers: you’re simply riding the same kind of wave Obama rode when he came into office. The economy is bad and people are sick of wars, creating the sense we need real change. Just as the Obama wave quickly dissipated, so will yours. Moreover, you’re only winning within the hard core of the GOP who votes in primaries. Most Americans do not share your world view.
Most Republicans, of course, know this. They understand that emotional movements can get a lot of press and create energy, but they dissipate quickly and can backfire if the headlines get too divisive and combative. They realize that they in these economic conditions in the first off year election during a new Presidential term that the deck is stacked in their favor. They expected an onslaught of advertising and attacks to come from the Democrats, and were prepared to weather them by keeping the focus on the economy and Obama’s policies. Instead they face internal revolt.
It is not yet common to hear this, but I predict it soon will be. If the GOP cannot regain control of its message, focus on the economy, and avoid being identified with the “tea party,” then they will be blowing an electoral opportunity of a lifetime. Instead of winning 50 to 60 seats in the House, they may not win 30. They may win only two to four Senate seats. Look at the polls. Republican leads are soft and small in many races, and the Democrats have more money and resources. Current predictions for a GOP “wave” assume those leads will stay or grow, and the Democrats will not be able to increase enthusiasm or stem the criticism.
If that wave doesn’t come, or if GOP behavior enthuse more Democrats and turn off some independents, there could be a shift to the Democrats between now and election day that push more tossups their way. And if on November 3rd Republicans wake up somewhat shocked and disappointed, thinking about what might have or should have been, they’ll only have the tea party to blame.