What to do with all that Anger

I went to the ABQ pride parade today in my "Dare to Hope. Prepare to be disappointed." shirt. It's more or less my mantra when be excited about politicians, and after Barack's upsetting support for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on Friday, it seemed the thing to do. A mild protest, sure, but really an acknowledgement that people, especially people in power, will do things we don't like, and we should be ready for this.

That doesn't excuse it. Readiness for suck doesn't negate the suck. But it should get us past the "oh no! why is this suck happening now!" part of the process, and onto something meaningful. Stay angry about it, sure, but then do something with that anger.

You can give to organizations. PFLAG is always worthy of support, as is the ACLU and Lambda Legal. You can sign petitions. Here's a petition calling for the repeal of DOMA, and here is another. And lastly, if you're in NM, Equality New Mexico is pretty fantastic, and has volunteer opportunities.

There's certainly way more that can be done. There are countless other places to start from. The point, though, is to take that anger, and do something with it. Not "fringe violence" something, mind you. But something. Constructive uses for that anger abound.

The work of being an active and concerned citizen never went away - the political climate right now is not great, but it is not explicitly hostile. Obama feels that the legislature is who needs to change DOMA; pressure legislators. (Contact information for Tom Udall, Jeff Bingaman, Martin Heinrich, Harry Teague, and Ben Ray Lujan.) And this is something that can function on the state level, and takes momentum. So. It is work, but it is doable work. Unfavorable presidents haven't stopped it before; why are we afraid that will hold us back now?

Getting Humanitarian Intervention Right

Evan's smart. His latest post, culled from an essay, is about how to do humanitarian intervention. And it is really good. My favorite point?

A majority of the bad reputation that humanitarian intervention has, then, is unearned; it is not the doctrine itself (which is guided by the noble ideal of protecting human life), nor the United Nations as an organization (which is left in the unenviable position of being the impartial mediator) that causes the complaints leveled against humanitarian intervention. It is the member nations themselves who use both the organization and the ideal as an excuse and a scapegoat.

Jim Scarantino/Post-Partisanship

For those outside of Albuquerque, you have almost certainly not heard of Jim Scarantino. He

presents himself as a brainy and moderate -- if somewhat pompous -- independent "libertarian."

according to Democracy for New Mexico. They have a fantastic piece up as a takedown of Scarantino's latest column about pending Domestic Partnership legislation. My favorite part of the piece, besides the fact-checking (which is always awesome in the blogosphere) is that they don't attack Scarantino so much for his stated partisan allegiance, but that they expose him for misrepresenting a bill in a wretchedly partisan way. It's a 'gotcha', but it's a really good gotcha, and it is exactly what the blogosphere can do best.

Scarantino, presenting himself as rational if disagreeable, attempts to make a broad appeal to the evangelical base of conservative movements, directly borrowing a line touted in defense of Proposition 8. He does this despite claiming that he's "on record supporting this concept", and he then goes on to say that "Every major religion continues to reject homosexual unions." I can't imagine any clear objective in his mind - do religions that support homosexual unions count as minor? Does he, the free and rational thinker he claims to be, think that the silent majority is justified in their fears, especially given that those fears have no real basis in the law? And, most importantly of all, is Jim's column anything more than masturbatory leftist-blaming?

What's a leftist, a moderate, or a genuine libertarian to do in the face of this? Tom Tomorrow of "This Modern World" suggests that we are now in an era of turning a blind eye to such deeds, in the spirit of post-partisanship. It's implied that because the left has been proven right on behalf of our electoral success that we forgive and forget the grievances placed upon us in the past. But post-partisanship isn't about forgetting - the left won with popular support, so it's not like we're forgetting the things we got right. And just because Obama has made a call for national unity and moving beyond party divisions (that'd be the forgiving) doesn't mean that we can't call someone out on blatant, civil-discourse-destroying partisan mud-slinging. Jim Scarantino here has nothing constructive to bring to the table - by advocating an opinion he disagrees with, whose basis in the law is non-existent, he has more or less decided that rather than engaging in a discussion about the boundary between church and state, he will instead claim rightness and hurl vitriol at those he disagrees with. (Really, Jim, fascist as a meaningful insult? This isn't 7th grade, and you are this close to breaking Godwin's Law).

Being post-partisan doesn't mean letting him say whatever he wants in the spirit of discourse (freedom of speech covers that). Being post-partisan means that when someone shows up to the discourse with a pile of unsubstantiated lies and the Cliff's Notes to 1984, we are allowed to ignore them and talk to the actual libertarians in the room. Because at least they are taking the discussion seriously. Because their intent is finding that line between church and state, instead of asserting their line is absolutely and infallibly correct. Because governments and political parties don't deal in infallibility, Jim - that's the realm of the Church.

Gaza

Christine at iMinister has a much more thoughtful piece up about being a bystander to a conflict that goes against ones values. It's much more diplomatic than my post, and it avoids the word "annihilationist", so please read her post if you think that this one will be unsavory.

My thoughts on Gaza have been scattered in many places across the Internet this week. In an exercise of demonstrating exactly what twitter isn't for, a friend and I have had banter going back and forth all week in 140 character increments. Snappy, but not the space for thoughts to become thoughtful. It was an especially weird conversation because my friend was advocating on behalf of Israel, and I was advocating on behalf of Gazans. My role in that conversation was to distinguish the terrorists from the innocents, and his role was to find the innocents complicit. In the abstract, it was a fascinating thought experiment. In reality, it was among the most unpleasant experiences of political discourse I have engaged in. The stakes in conversation about this are high, and the ability of one to convince another of the rightness of their opinion is very low. Following my advice, I wouldn't have this conversation.

The problem with a conversation treated as a war is that it lingers. It's not a pleasant place to dwell, but like all optimistic Generals, it's easy to look at a fixed row of trenches, aim for a weak spot, and make a push to remove the stalemate. It doesn't work for two reasons. One: while it is incredibly hard for one side to 'win' a conversation like this, it is really easy for someone acting in opposition to restore it to stalemate status. Two: conversations aren't battles, discussion topics aren't wars, and while the metaphors are at times handy, treating this as a tooth-and-nail battle to fight isn't helping.

My discussion on twitter swung in interesting directions in the attempt to break through. My central conceit, which made discussion possible, was that while Israel was justified in the right of response. their response was both unjust and disproportionate. Disproportionate is an interesting word here. In a letter to the editor in Albuquerque's Weekly Alibi, political scientist Brandon Curtis argues that the term itself is meaningless and a cheap shot from people who don't understand the issue. I respectfully disagree, but I think it's easy to understand why the word seems inappropriate.

In October 2001, NATO went to war in Afghanistan in response to a terrorist attack by a group that country hosted. In 2003, the American public (and, more importantly, it's elected officials) felt it was appropriate to overthrow and destroy the government of Iraq based on the possibility that it might be fostering future terrorists, or giving them weapons, or was itself a terrorististic state. Recent memory serves that no degree of force is too little to adequately protect a nation from terrorism. We forget, then, other responses. In October 2000, in response to the bombing of the USS Cole by terrorists, Clinton sent out legal experts to track down and arrest the specific culprits. In October* 1983, the US marine barracks (which also housed French troops) was bombed in Beirut. The response was a small punitive bombing of alleged terrorists by France, followed by a quiet retreat of US forces in February. And, as popularized in the film Munich, it is assumed that Israel responded to the kidnapping and murder of it's Olympic Athletes by hunting down people assumed to be connected.

All these responses, at the time, have been justified as proportionate. Since that list includes everything from abandonment to assassination, and from legal action to pre-emptive war, the field of declaring proportionality is wide open. So, while I think that Israel has a right to respond to attacks against its citizens, I don't think that the method of response (bombing, followed by a ground invasion) is proportionate. Israel is responding to terrorism by treating it as a war, and that greatly complicates the issue.

If this is a war, one has to assume that Hamas itself, as the government of Gaza, is marshaling the terrorists as a formal army. While I'm more toward ambivalent about Hamas belligerance in this conflict, I am inclined to suspect that they have little choice besides acting in control or being seen as even more powerless than they are. In conversation with my friend, I argued disproportionality because, while the terrorists targeted civilians, the correct response of a government is to target terrorists. Yes, this is holding Israel to a higher standard. They are a western democracy, and that means we are allowed to expect better of them. But suppose that Hamas itself is directing the attacks, is responsible for them, feels no qualms over the death of it's own citizens, and that they are fighting this war in the same way that European nations fought WWI. In that case, it makes more sense that Israel is responding with a war of annihilation - it's unjust as all hell, but at the very least it makes sense.

Because if Israel isn't fighting a war of annihilation against another nation that would do the same, they are certainly acting like it. In my conversation over twitter, I argued with the friend that the majority of Gazans are in fact innocents, and not complicit in the attacks. He responded by claiming that if they were not in complicit in the attacks, why weren't they doing anything to stop them. I think they don't have the resources necessary to stop the attacks, and I'm inclined to think that all the former Gazans with resources have left. People with means tend not to remain in ghettoized nations. Hamas, whether or not it actively encouraged the terrorists who started this conflict, has very little choice but to support them now. They are, after all, the ones with the weapons, and despite the relatively calm two-year ceasefire, Hamas is well aware that no Israeli operation in the area would be complete without an attempt to remove Hamas from power. Hamas has had to very quickly move itself into the role of fighting against Israel, because the only thing worse than a government that fails to prevent war is a government that fails to effectively fight it.

And this, here, is the tragedy. Before the conflict broke out, Hamas wanted a new ceasefire. Hamas is an organization whose main appeal is their unequivocal call for the eradication of Israel, and yet by advocating for a new ceasefire they had shown that they were willing to accept the two state solution, at least temporarily. Skeptics can throw this off as an attempt to keep things calm before the war itself broke out, but they are missing the potential inherent in that ceasefire. Hamas wanted, at least temporarily, a ceasefire. This is a militant party that came to power democratically, and whose future as a party of rule depends upon public opinion. Most war-mongering parties in history go to war as soon as they are elected, else the public change its mind and elect others. Hamas didn't want this, and I cannot fathom why the opportunity to forge a slightly less imperfect peace was not seized upon, especially if it is Israel's goal to prevent Palestinian terrorism, rather than to wipe Gaza out.

There are two broad categories of eliminating terrorism, and they are the same broad categories categories people use to deal with crime. One: kill/capture/disable all those who would commit terrorism. Two: make sure other options exist for people who would otherwise turn to terrorism. The first response is the one that militaries can do, to some extent. It was fortunate for the US in the early stages of its operations in Afghanistan that many al Qaeda fighters were willing to straightforwardly fight against the US - that makes the work much, much easier. In Iraq, of course, the terrorists didn't emerge until after the war, and being terrorists, they weren't interested in fighting set-piece battles. Instead, they formed militias (for defensive purposes) and acted anonymously amidst the population when attacking US troops. Iraq is large - with ~ 170,000 square miles and a population of 29 million, it is easy for people to hide and it is hard to kill them all. Gaza, on the other hand, is tiny - 139 square miles, and 1.5 million people in that little area. For a more relevant size comparison, the city of Albuquerque is 181 square miles, and about a third the population of Gaza. Gaza is a place where approach one, kill everyone who might be terrorists, could work.

To even have that on the table is ridiculous. And yet, Israel seeks punitive attacks with overwhelming force against terrorists operating within the area. Not that some attacks wouldn't work, and not that some retaliation doesn't make sense, but the scale and the manner of the tactics, if they aren't annihilationist, are beyond excessive, and if they are annihilationist, then they are patently immoral.

Option two for fighting terrorism is the one that I think has the most promise for Gaza, and had it been adopted as part of a renewed ceasefire, I think it would have eventually had the effect that Israel's attack aims to achieve. When Gazans (and Palestinians more generally) know that they are safe in Palestine, that their rights are respected, and that Israeli invasion is a distant (if not non-existent) possibility, they will be able to concentrate on issues other than injustices visited upon them by Israel.

But I don't think that's what the response to this attack will be, and the time for wishful thinking about ceasefires has passed and is not yet at hand again. Instead, I predict that the same will always happen in Gaza as has tended to happen - punitive strikes by Israel, followed by calm, followed by stagnation and oppression in Gaza, followed by terrorist attacks originating in Gaza, followed by punitive attacks on behalf of Israel, rinse, repeat.

There are two ways out of this mess, out of this most vicious and petty of cycles. The first, the annihilationist war, is patently immoral, and I don't imagine that Israel will actually do it. The second, the long slow development of Gaza into a safe and stable place, with terms negotiated over years that slowly grant better and better conditions for Palestine, is the option I'm holding out for. It's also an option that will take a willingness on behalf of Israel to keep working, even in the face of terrorist attacks. And it will take an effort reciprocated by Gazans, to go from an attitude that, though not complicit, is indifferent to terrorism, towards an attitude that condemns terrorism as much as it condemns injustice visited upon Palestinians. When the people have other options, they will use them. Bombing people into non-existence doesn't do that, and in fact is a very active way of removing options from people.

Our 43rd president intended to make his legacy one of fighting terrorism and of nation building. That's an entirely compatible goal set, but it's impossible to do in a flashy way - people remember wars. People don't remember long, gradual movements towards peace and stability. They just wake up one day and realize how happy they are that they haven't experienced a war in decades. That's the goal, and that's the possibility that existed in Hamas offer of extending the ceasefire. It's a possibility that remains, and its one well worth keeping in mind for the next time.



*Seriously, what is with October showing up so much. Did al qaeda watch Red October, and misinterpret that Americans were scared of October when they were really scared of Reds?

Editor's Note:The easy way to avoid this conversation is to say something like "these issues go back to biblical times, why discuss them?". My other big Internet conversation about this before my post was on facebook, and after someone replied with the 'biblical times' comment, I responded with this:

I think we're terribly mistaken to pass this off as going back to biblical times - the modern conflict isn't Jews versus Palestinians, it started Israelis versus Arabs; the Arabs in question have, post 1968, become Palestinian by virtue of abandonment of by the rest of the Arab world. Israel still sees Palestinian action as an attempt by Arab states to remove Israel from existence, while Palestine is largely on it's own, despite moves by Iran-affiliated Hezbollah in Lebanon and posturing on behalf of other Arab leaders. And now we're even past issues of Israel's right to exist - Hamas at least temporarily accepts a two-state solution. The trick is figuring out modern terms, and how Palestine will negotiate itself into a position less asymmetrical than the one it currently enjoys. The conflict has involved into a very modern form, and while historical legacy plays a role, it's much more recent history than millennial or even centuries old.

So, yeah, no this isn't an old issue. A much better way to avoid the conversation would be to say "lets ride bikes".

Rick Warren, Obama, and the Center in American Politics

For more or less every person vaguely in the US political blogosphere, and especially for those people who care about social issues, the big looming discontent this week has focused on Barack Obama's selection of Rick Warren as the minister to give the inaugural invocation. And this is good - in our participatory democracy where personal views matter as much as stated policy aims, we as the public, as the pale apparition of new journalism, and even alongside the white elephant of old journalism (a term of endearment, that) have a right and a duty to examine in as much detail the little signifiers which could become the big signifiers.

There's some real grounds for fear here. In the wake of prop 8, and with the side note that the Obama campaign had both "Obama/Yes on 8" and "Obama/No on 8" voters, it seems like the president is not so beholden to the LGBT community as many had hoped. This perceived abandonment is cemented in the minds of many by Rick Warren. After all, he has likened gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. That's more or less an unforgivable offense, right?

Well, yes and no. Which I guess really means no. For many, any nuanced qualifiers (which, if you know me, you know are coming) are not enough. The far left, the progessive left, the left-left, the bleeding-hear-left, social libertarians, and a good many in the moderate left all view this as completely unacceptable. There are almost certainly political scientists right now formulating Obama's political obituary, examining the breakup of the new new deal coalition. First it was the social issues, they'll say. And indeed, I cannot begrudge those who feel betrayed right now, who feel that Obama himself has crossed a line of no return. This is not the first thing to exhaust serious political capital among the left, but it is one of the biggest. And for many, the mere act of the appointment overrides two very important things Obama is doing.

Firstly, Obama himself has a statement of very, very importantly phrased qualifiers. Secondly, Obama is appointing people with far more accepting views to actual meaningful positions.

Here's what I think are Obama's two key points:

• The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what's important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America's promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.

• As he's said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That's the only way we'll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.

(emphasis mine). Barack Obama's selection of Rev. Rick Warren is not a blanket endorsement of Warren's views and attitudes. It is not even an endorsement of a majority of Rick Warren's views. It is, instead, an endorsement of a few very specific areas of Rick Warren's ministry - Obama says of Rick Warren that "He's devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis" (emphasis, again, mine). This is that evangelical movement which, to an outsider like myself, appears to have repeatedly placed itself in opposition to all the issues of social justice I've cared about. No doubt many are attributing the differences in the success of McCain and Bush's presidential campaigns to the evangelical fervor that swung behind Bush, and was more lacking in support of McCain. This is a group I'd more or less written off as "the opposition". Fortunately for me, the political Left, and the United States on the whole, Obama does not see evangelicals that way.

Rick Warren's presence at the inauguration is not the selling out to the religious right that many fear it is. It is instead an acknowledgment of the religious center, which has been missing from our political discourse. Yes, Rick Warren has views which are antithetical to many progressives. But Rick Warren is not alone in that, and while he did speak in favor of proposition 8, and we can disagree with him on that, he does care about global poverty, and he cares about the fight against AIDS. Obama agrees with Rick Warren on those latter terms, and disagrees on the former. This is not a matter of selling out - this is a matter of acknowledging the diversity of our nation. A messy, sometimes frustrating diversity of opinion, but this is a rather vital one. Obama's inauguration will have another minister, a "giant of the civil rights movement" give the benediction. And Obama has made other, more meaningful actions to show support of LGBT people. That list of meaningful actions includes some hesitancy, and it includes some cautious opinions on his part. It also lacks the neat, doctrinaire uniformity that progressives want from their messiah, and we are foolish for wanting this.

This is a nation of diversity, and any leader who adheres so strongly to just one faction is a leader that betrays the core principles of democracy. It does not meant that our voices aren't valid - they are, now, more than ever. But it does mean that the nation isn't monolithic, that the president has to acknowledge that, and that sometimes a nation has to change underneath it's leader to move him in the right direction.

Obama's inclusion of Rick Warren in his inauguration is a sign that being on the left, or holding even center-left views (like an obligation to fight poverty) does not mean one can't express religion. It's a shame and unfortunate that religion in US politics is presently tied to the Religious Right; Rick Warren himself, while an evangelical, can be found much more awkwardly in the center, where his views do not easily align himself to one party - it's an awkward nation where religiously justified condemnation of poverty and religiously explained condemnation of sexual orientation do not share the same ticket, but it's the nation we have been living in. Obama, by including Rick Warren, seeks to bring religion into the discussion on social justice; it's been isolated in issues of social norms for so long that it's hard to remember the more broader applications of Jesus's teachings, the ones that apply out of the bedroom. By including Rick Warren, Obama does not endorse Warren's views on homosexuality - what Obama does do is endorse evangelicals taking an active role in social justice. This is not a move that could be made in a US where a whole side of the spectrum can hold "unforgivable" views. We, as the left, were excited to see on election day that cries of "socialism" and "spread the wealth around", topics for decades off-limits to US politicians, were not run into the ground. Not to say that we should be accepting of Warren's intolerances, but we should open up a dialog where our sound reason can win the day - excluding one side from every discussion because we don't like where they stand on one of them is tragic, and hurts our nation as a collective whole.

If you've made is this far, you've noticed my tip-toeing around the other big issue that upsets the left with Rick Warren's selection. Rick Warren not only actively campaigned against gay marriage, but he is fairly active against a Women's Right to Choose. I've buried this issue, not because I don't think it's relevant, but because it is harder and harder to see the right-to-life (or, if you prefer, anti-choice) side being an overwhelming national movement. The pro-choice fight is more and more of a quiet one -I'm willing to bet that the silent majority is pretty much entrenched on the side of choice in this one. Perhaps they want more qualifiers, refinement in the right, but this is a right that seems to be guaranteed. Not that we shouldn't fight - we kind of have to. But the fight can be won, and noticeable in this election the pro-choice fight had three significant victories - unsurprising in California, welcome in Colorado, and perhaps most profound in South Dakota. Christine over at iMinister made an important note of this in her post-election sermon. Rick Warren is not on the side of history for this one, and while I'm unwilling to say that progress here is irreversible, it is instead in the enviable position of being well defended when even the movement defending it seems to, at times, be on the margin. It's one of the few times I like how effective the silent majority is, and when the silent majority is winnign the battles in the ballot booth, it means the issue is close to safe. Rick Warren's anti-choice actions and opinions do not undermine this progress

There is one last point I have to make here, on this issue. The picture below these words is one of the most heartening signs that progressives will not be lost in this election. That, right there, is New Mexico's congressional delegation for 2009. On the far right (ha ha) is Senior Senator Jeff Bingaman, who has been protecting the interests of progressives nationally and in New Mexico for twenty five years. The remaining men in the picture (L to R, Ben Ray Lujan, Martin Heinrich, Tom Udall, and Harry Teague) are New Mexico's three congressional representatives, with the exception of Tom Udall, New Mexico's new Junior Senator. For all the symbolic angst that may arise about Rick Warren's stands on social issues, these are five reliable votes against those initiatives. For all the doubts about Obama's sincerity to his supporters on the left, these are five votes that will pull him further to where he should be. And for every move made to combat AIDS, and for every move aimed at fighting poverty, these are five votes that will reliably side with progress.


And that dichotomy mentioned above, where people work together on some but not all issues? That's more or less exactly what the Obama administration is about. It isn't an exclusion of hated opponents, a condemnation of outsiders by those in power, or even a takeover of government by the left. It is one of the ironies of this campaign that the Senate's greatest moderate in recent memory campaigned against a candidate identified with a fringe, only to have the roles reversed on the campaign trail. Obama won the election by a majority of voters not because this nation has become the ideological equivalent of San Fransisco, but because Obama's appeals, which endeared him to the left, are fundamentally centrist.

Leftist doctrine has, for the past century and a half, focused on competing interests within a society. Marxism, Labour, and the general confusion of class and nationality have played out over the past century to constitute a left that, while it has some popular appeal, cannot decide what to do when in power. In France in the 1930s, the Left achieved an electoral victory at the exact smae time all of Europe was afraid of both fascism and Stalin, and the left was too divided to let itself act as a party of rule. These divisions, inherent in notions of "class warfare" and echoed in such modern times by John Edwards' "Two Americas" speech, give the left its fighting words, but they also drive it away from being acceptable as a party of rule. Obama, from his very first appearance in the media spotlight, has focused on "One America". His notion of hope comes across as leftist because it involves reconciliation - such strange events have driven our nation to see diplomacy, talking to people we disagree with, and earnest attempts at working together for the benefit of all as leftist fantasies, left over from the 1960s. This misrepresents the left of the sixties and it misrepresents the left of now - both have widely differing views on what government should or shouldn't do, and I'm pleased to say that, 38 years after that decade ended, the left in the United States is able to position itself as a party of rule.

It's taken a long time for this, and it's required that most fundamental of compromises - ideals as a driving impulse, instead of being the straightforward rule of government. This is realism, this is pragmatism, and this is inching towards the Center. The center-left became popularized under Clinton and Tony Blair, but they are not so much leftists as real-mild-rightists. They made being identified with the left acceptable, but for all their strengths they lived scared of being seen as weak, as compromising, and as unfit to rule. Clinton, especially, faced the controversy of moral weakness, and his actions almost certainly added a decade to the lifespan of the religious right in US politics. But he did prove that a democrat, a person on the left, could both have that party and govern from the center.

Obama, as outlined wonderfully by fivethirtyeight, has a progressive agenda, with many items that are near and dear to the left and the far left. "But Kelsey," you thousands of readers clamor, "haven't you been saying Obama is a centrist?" Well, yes, yes I have, and you are all astute observers. So here's the big qualifier - the United States, as is, doesn't have a center. We have two points (or parties), both off center, around which voters tend to congregate. The battle for undecideds is so fierce because there is no party permanently camped out in the center - candidates aiming towards the middle have to moderate their views or open the appeal of their candidate beyond sticking on a certain pole. The battle for the loyal, on the other hand, is about convincing polarized voters that their guy this time is really much closer to the far side of the spectrum than they are to the center. This works, to some extent, for the winner-take-all system that is US politics. In other countries with parliaments and governments of coalitions, however, we see something very different. We see a center party, or center-left and center-right parties, or a center-christian party, and these will almost always be part of the ruling coalitions. Not entirely ideologically pure, but they get the job done, and they have, at their very core, a willingness to incorporate some ideas of others with their broad schemes. McCain, as a Senator, represented a clear example of the "across the aisle" spirit that pervades parties of or around the center.

Obama, alternatively, has made his rhetoric his centrist appeal. And he's done more than that - by inviting Rick Warren to the inauguration, he not only clearly sets himself apart from the left (or at least, those parts of the left that find this unforgivable), he also shows the United States where the center is. It's vague right now, and while it disagrees hugely on some issues (again LGBT and Choice), Obama is trying very clearly to connect the center in US politics to social justice. It's a bold move, and one that Obama has certainly taken flak for, but it has done something almost unthinkable - the evangelicals, the ones that elected W twice, the ones that gave Palin her moment and momentum, have found something to agree on with the President. It's allowed the intersection of religion and politics to not be dominated by the Religious Right, and its made the way possible for more openness in dialog. There are consequences for being in the center - every side gets to take pot-shots, and gets to pick more ideologically pure successors. But the center holds because it is where the voters are, and if Obama can use this almost-unprecedented opportunity for reconciliation (unlike that squandered, post-Civil War attempt), he can create a reliable center in US politics, longer-lived than the New Deal coalition, and he can place that center firmly on the left. It will take skill and careful manuevering. And it will take the inclusion of religious moderates and religious liberals. And it will come dangerously close to betraying that ideological purity we're all so fond of. But its doable, and it is a necessity for this nation.

Godspeed.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The UDHR is 60 years old today. Here's my previous post about them, with an awesome video that is worth watching again.

Also, here's the full text of the declaration. Enjoy! (I'll have a more elaborate post about the rights themselves at a time that isn't finals week. For now, enjoy some history of justice. Also, bonus points for UUs who can find all 7 principles hidden in these)

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Catechism

As I'm mentioned previously, I've a bit of a fondness for certain values with universal implications. It's unsurprising, then, that in looking for a document to frame a rational set of morals/beliefs/standards for humanity, I've come across and become rather fond of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's a longish list (a preamble and 30 articles, most of which have multiple clauses), and that's a bit of a challenge for me. I was recently embarrassed when I could only recall 5 of the 7 UU principles (I'd merged the 2nd and 6th and omitted the 3rd), so memorizing the Universal Declaration will be a bit of a challenge.

Fortunately, there is this video, found via BoingBoing:


It's good. And it'll make memorization of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that much easier.

Economics Question

Today in microeconomics, my teacher said "economics can be extraordinarily unfair, but it is remarkably efficient." She followed this by saying that many government programs "aimed at creating fairness, by necessity, create inefficiency".

So, my readers, all twelve of you - Are economic efficiency and fairness necessarily opposed? Are they opposite ends of the same spectrum?

Your thoughts in the comments section, please. I'm intrigued to get other minds looking at this.

Reconciling Worldviews

I've had a lot of frustration this week (and will undoubtedly still have this frustration for weeks to come) with political perspectives that I see as dangerous and alien. So it's comforting to have psychologists looking at morality and coming up with conclusions. Here's the article, which I recommend in full. Below are my two favorite parts so far.

They want more prayer and spanking in schools, and less sex education and access to abortion? I didn't think those steps would reduce AIDS and teen pregnancy, but I could see why the religious right wanted to "thicken up" the moral climate of schools and discourage the view that children should be as free as possible to act on their desires. Conservatives think that welfare programs and feminism increase rates of single motherhood and weaken the traditional social structures that compel men to support their own children? Hmm, that may be true, even if there are also many good effects of liberating women from dependence on men. I had escaped from my prior partisan mindset (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later), and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society.

and

[M]orality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb? (Ed - emphasis in bold is mine).

I'm not yet done with the article, but it is challenging in interesting ways, stretching the tolerance of an open mind. If you're ready to considers others views as valid, give it a shot.

Edit: I've finished reading the article, and I'll have commentary up later. Right now the thing worth mentioning is pair of quotes:

"Religion and political leadership are so intertwined across eras and cultures because they are about the same thing: performing the miracle of converting unrelated individuals into a group."

and

The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation. This often divisive struggle among the parts must be balanced by a clear and oft-repeated commitment to guarding the precious coherence of the whole.

The key moral underpinning of politics on the left is, I think, reemerging after a several decades of hibernation under utopian secular notions. I think this change (which the author of the article sees as needed) is happening, and I think it's a good thing.

More on White Privilege

When last I posted here, my post was little more than a glorified cut-and-paste of someone else's thoughts. I'm comfortable with that, because the someone in question is Tim Wise, and he's far more competent than I am at understanding white privilege.

The article of his I quoted (in it's entirety) was focused on white privilege as it concerns the presidential election. The article is good and poignant, but it assumes some basic understanding of the mechanics of privilege. That's tricky stuff, so his follow-up is an incredibly helpful rundown of what white privilege is. His whole post can be found here.

In addition, there are two points worth highlighting:

That's the point: privilege is the flipside of discrimination. If people of color face discrimination, in housing, employment and elsewhere, then the rest of us are receiving a de facto subsidy, a privilege, an advantage in those realms of daily life. There can be no down without an up, in other words.

The above is white privilege in three sentences, which I don't think I've seen done anywhere as effectively or concise.

The below is the requisite call to action:

One way is by fighting for a society in which those privileges will no longer exist, and in which we will be able to stand on our own two feet, without the artificial crutch of racial advantage to prop us up. We need to commit to fighting for racial equity and challenging injustice at every turn, not only because it harms others, but because it diminishes us as well (even as it pays dividends), and because it squanders the promise of fairness and equity to which we claim to adhere as Americans.

It's about responsibility, not guilt.

Brinkmanship

Yesterday I finished reading "The Crisis of Islam" by Bernard Lewis. While I recommend a lot of books, I don't make the recommendations lightly, and that is especially true for this book. "Crisis of Islam" reads and feels like the best history and context for understanding the actions of Usama bin Laden (or as we know him, Osama), and the conflict he sees with the west. The book is a scant 169 pages, and it goes quickly, which is why I'm inclined to recommend it over every other book of the sort a person can find. This is a book that can be read, read easily, and will have a profound effect on a person's understanding of the War on Terror. (This makes sense, given that the book is assigned reading for the "War on Terror" class I'm taking). The book, again, is great history.

The problem I have with it is that the book is poor political science, and it tries to be. In fact, the book was drawn in part from articles in Foreign Affairs (my favorite source of international relations political science), and the book was written with the intent of influencing major policy decisions. Checking the wikipedia on Bernard Lewis, it was kind of startling to read that he was one of the major intellectuals arguing in favor of the United States invasion of Iraq. The book itself doesn't overtly advocate the actions wikipedia attributes to Lewis's influence. But it's implied, and it's a strong undertone in the last chapter.

The book was written and published before the United States invaded Iraq. Lewis' plan, as it can be inferred, was for an externally imposed democracy to become a catalyst for more genuine democratic movements in the middle east, which would lead to prosperity, stability, and a positive outlet for moderate Islam to regain control of the debate from radical extremes. This is, as you've probably reasoned, absurd.

The logic behind it states that Islam, as nation-religion, no longer has adversaries to play off against each other. The rest of the West is out, Russia is out, and the United States stands as the only civilization opposing the glorious spread of Muhammad's nation and religion. Bernard Lewis does such a good job explaining the desire for the global religion-state as the objective of radical Islam, and he does such a good job showing the current regimes in the middle east as failed custodians of the faith and successors to the Caliph, that he can't figure out how a nativist movement could be anything but violently radical. In Lewis' view, the only hope for democracy in the middle east (excepting Turkey and Israel) is an external catalyst.

This contradicts his own understanding of the importance of nativism to the nation-religion of Islam. The importance of bin-Laden and the threat that he represents is based on and enhanced by his success in driving Russia out of Afghanistan. Khomeini and al-Sadr both can be pointed to as having had meaningful action against the corrupt and the foreign, and without the legitimacy of the act they would be fringe elements. That Khomeini's state became more oppressive than the one it succeeded is a grave flaw, but the quasi-democracy it operates, the poor economic fortunes of many Iranians, the concentration of poor economic prospects in the younger half of a nation where the media age is 26, and the fading memory of revolution all provide the opportunity for a nativist change in government, and a move away from oppressive and radical Islam. The state bin-Laden supported has been reduced to the margins, and with luck will remain there. Meanwhile, a variety of ethnic parties have filled the void left by a religious government, and this too bodes well for nativst change. Perhaps the devolution of the state of Afghanistan, but certainly a trend towards nativist rule over outsider radicals.

And then we have Iraq. Iraq is my major sore point with Lewis, and it baffles me how he can write that history and assume an imposed democracy will work. The way Lewis sees it, the United States needs to just maintain a presence, outlast the terrorists, and it can claim victory. He points to the fact that the PLO repeatedly engaged in terrorist activity but never had Isreal give in as a sign of success, and treats the largely one-sided negotiations between Israel and Palestine as a positive sign. The trick, Lewis seems to be saying, is for the US to master brinkmanship - we stay right on the edge, we keep our opposition there, and we don't blink. If we can hold out, prove by our existence their futility, they will be forced to adopt other means, and the whole crisis of radical Islam will be over. This actually justifies making the Iraq the battleground for the war on terror, as it is an overt desire to create an actual battlefield on which terrorism can lose.

It's a bold statement, but it's fundamentally stupid. In all his reading of history, and in his undertanding of bin Laden's reading of history, Lewis makes the astute observation that the terrorists are motivated by percieved marks against the dignity of the nation-religion of Islam. Specific grievances cited are the crusades (which are much more of an after-the-fact grievance), the breakdown and destruction of the Ottoman empire, and US support for corrupt and weak leaders in the middle east. Again, the grievances are: 1- an invasion by infidels, 2-the destruction of an important and powerful muslim state, and 3-the support of government that otherwise shouldn't exist. Having made this claim, I cannot understand how he thinks the overthrow of the government of Iraq by the US with the express purpose of putting in place a new government is a good idea. That is two of the above indignities, and close to the third (Iraq was, in name, secular, but it has a muslim population and is a historic center of muslim government).

The problem with the crisis is that it is too big an issue to be tackled by one solution. Catalysts are nice, and sometimes essential, but that are very hard to create from the outside. And I think that is the fundamental frustration that Lewis is unable to address. The United States has suffered from terrorism, and the destruction of the United States is the stated objective of radical Islam. The United States, as the most power country in the world, should be able to do something about it. The wars is Iraq and Afghanistan were moves to do something about it. But the problem is that they don't work, and the thing that is absolutely terrifying about this conflcit is that the United States is powerless here. To end radical Islam, moderate Islam has to make real gains at home. That will require the end of oil money and the end of US interest in backing corrupt governments that provide oil, and then it will require American non-interference in the potentially revolutionary or democratizing moves that follow. The United States must let native movements take place, and let self-determination and human dignity be affirmed by these movements of their own will, even in the shape of religious parties or states. Without dignity, the terrorists will continue. With human dignity restored, with governments responsive to the needs of the populace (or at the very least vulnerable to the populace), then and only then will we have outlasted the War on Terror.

But we've created a battlefield on which it is impossible for us to win. Brinkmanship won the Cold War, but that was against a nation. The Nation of Islam that bin-Laden wants to establish doesn't exist in a present form, and as a transient quantity, it can't be destroyed. As an ideology, and as an ideology with at 1400 year legacy, it can be outlasted. That's an impossibility, and even turing Iraq into an accelerator of the movement, the lighting of match to burn out the gas leak, will not help. The problem cannot be changed in that way, and our continued actions only breed contempt.

We need to find a solution other than this impossibility.

Edit 9/12/2008: It's well worth mentioning that Lewis is very orientalist in his perspective, and that he sees most of the past two centuries of development in the Muslim world as adapted or inspired by Western ideals. That said, the history is still good, and he even counters his own emphasis on the West by repeatedly referring to the necessity and importance of nativist trends.

The Israel Question

Before I state anything, I'd like to direct you to this photo gallery of female Israeli soldiers, and ask you to both look through the gallery and read the authors statement with an open mind and in the spirit of respecting art.

After checking that out, feel free to form opinions of your own. If you want some pre-made opinions, many can be found here.

Israel is and has been the pressing issue of the middle east. It's a nation born in the aftermath of tragedy that finds itself in a perpetual state of alert. Public service, most commonly military service, is compulsory for Israelis when they turn 18. The photographer does, in my opinion, a really good job examining with minimal judgment the juxtaposition of adolescence with military service, and by using pictures of female soldiers she's allowed to open up a new avenue for understanding what military service does to young people. Soldiering is too often tied up in definitions of masculinity and male duty, so it is fascinating to see it in another context.

And then we have Israel itself, as discussions over anything related to Israel must return back to the state. My family has a small personal history with the nation; my grandfather, Alfred Leroy Atherton Jr (Roy), was ambassador to Egypt for the United States from 1978-1979. He was present during the assassination of Anwar Sadat. And he personally met with Yassar Arafat. This legacy, as a burgeoning student of history and politics, informed my understanding of the world and of international relations. At the center of this legacy is figuring out a right relationship with Isreal.

Israel is a state whose origins I will not dispute and whose right to exist is an anarchronistic question. The modern state of Israel is, and will be, a reality. There is no sense in arguing otherwise, and there is only ill will to be gained that way. Besides, saying Israel shouldn't exist is much the same as arguing that Global Warming isn't happening - both statements delay real, meaningful debate, and both fly in the face of obvious and accepted fact. So what is the debate I have in mind?

The classical debate over the US and Israel is what the relationship should be. Under the Carter presidency, and when Roy was ambassador to Egpyt, the US backed off from it's standard unwavering support for Israel and tried to create a meaningful dialogue with the parties in conflict. Since then, the attitude and tone have changed from administration to administration, but the general purpose has been the same: to secure a stable relationship between Isreal and its neighbors, with accomodation for Palestine that still leaves Isreal in a position of strength.

To there benefit, Palestine and Isreal can rely on world media coverage, and the fact that many nations have a vested interest in the outcome of a peace process. To the detriment of most any cause elsewhere, Isreal takes media priority. This is a tricky balance - Isreal is a democracy of sorts, and Isreal is a western country. We (being the West) have high standards for Israeli conduct, and constant media attention helps keep things honest. And it is important to be aware of and acknowledge the Palestinian grievances as real and meaningful, and media attention helps with that as well.

The problem is that almost any government could use the same scrutinty in its actions, and that this media attention has been an objective of terrorist action. That helps no one, and while grievances need to be aired and addressed (and don't think that I am anything like in favor of letting Isreal off the hook for what has amounted to serious crimes ans flaws in conduct), terrorism undermines moves for stability, it undermines the potential for democracy, and it doesn't allow for any other option besides the destruction of Israel. It is, to put it mildly, unrealistic. And the media does a disservice to the public by continuing to focus so much on Isreal.

I have no answers for the Israel question. I have general notions, ideas of way more carrot and way less stick, and an emphasis on responsible diplomacy. Human dignity as a cornerstone of US policy would be a good plan, especially if the plan emphasized Palestinian and Israeli human dignity as equally important. But I don't think the solution for Isreal is high-profile and external, and I don't think that every slight development in Isreal needs the world media pouring over it. Again, grievances recorded and tragedies documented and protested, but the emphasis on covering Isreal over every other crisis in the world isn't beneficial. Israel is an important nation, but it is not the only important nation. And Israel has interesting and modern problems, but it is not alone in that.

My point is this: the Israel question is not as important as we make it, and the issue is too divisive, too complicated to really be dealt with well. I think that we, as a civilization, can collectively move on. I think we'll be better for it, and I think on the whole it will help the situation.

Underestimating Voters

Recently I wrote a post where I expressed a rather risky point of view, and a view that deviates from previously expressed ideals of mine. There's some interesting discussion in the comments section, and I'm not entirely convinced I was wrong yet, but the interesting point is my assertion that:

yes, I'm advocating lying to one's constituency, or acting in a way that is tantamount to lying. It's excused here (far as I'm concerned, at least), by the fact that it isn't quite oath-breaking, that it's in the best interest of the nation, and that every other politician (excepting Kucinich) would be doing it too.

Democracy in any form is incredibly challenging, and representative model functions on the basis that citizens can chose lawmakers who will act on behalf of all society. Part of the trust placed in lawmakers is that they will act on our immediate desires, part of the trust is that they will act according to values we share, and part of that trust is that they will act in the absolute best interest of the nation, voter whims and values be damned.

Of course, since no one person has a monopoly on what is best for the nation, it's incredibly hard to figure out how to act in the best interest in a way that isn't opposed to your voter's whims and values. The wrong choice, of course, means a loss of the office, and people get an opportunity to select someone whose sense of national good is more closely aligned with the voters sense of national good. This is good, get-rid-of-the-crook and all that, but it leads to a short-sightedness in government that bothers me, and my love of technocracy. Below, my rough comparison of democracy and technocracy through the lens of the USA:

• In a pure democracy, the citizens vote directly on the issues, write the legislation, and citizens as a whole act as legislators.

• In a technocracy, people who are in positions of power exercise all the functions of state, including the ones the generate, modify, and execute laws, and do so with a mind toward the best interest of the state.

• In representative democracy, technocrats are answerable to citizens at set periods, and technocrats have to act on a version of the national interest that fits in best with voters 2, 4, or 6 year time span.

And this leads in a roundabout way back to underestimating voters. In a pure democracy, the citizens themselves are deemed to be adequately qualified to perform the functions of state. In representative democracy, the citizens are assumed to be unable/unavailable/unnecessary to execute the functions of the state, and so they instead appoint technocrats. From this, it's easy to conclude that we, citizens in a representative democracy, do not deem ourselves fit to rule. But that's a false conclusion, and it's an elitist position.

Yesterday at church the sermon (which will eventually be on the site) concerned the 5th principle agreed to by UU congregations: "The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large". It makes sense in the midst of a list extolling human dignity and justice that democracy would be the only available method of governance. Flawed as it is, it's the only method that repeatedly asks for the consent of the governed in a meaningful way (plebiscites, popular in undemocratic regimes as a way of addressing the consent of the governed, are hardly meaningful). And I'm reminded of a conversation with Terry Arnold why, given the incredible power that facism can concentrate, that a good facists isn't desirable. Any government that derives its power from anything other than continual consent is a false government.

In the post that this is a response to, I left a comment where I said "I'm not sure we have a population that can legitimately offer informed consent on issues like this". That sentence is utterly false; any population can offer consent to government by simple virute of it being a population whose consent is asked for/required. My position on domestic drilling, that it is right to claim to act with the consent of some against the wishes of others, and then to switch it around in the process of drafting legislation, is a false position. It's a betrayal of everyone's trust, and it shows a haughty caluseness that I was hoping I wouldn't get until at least grad school. So, my revised stance:

Domestic drilling isn't worth it. It's one of many options, and while I'm on record in many places for saying that we should keep all options open, we should know when an option just isn't worth it. Domestic drilling has an incredibly small potential yield, and while the absolute supply of oil would increase, the relative supply would be hardly changed. That's at the price of environment we can't get back, of wilderness that can only be despoiled once, and it's an abuse of our government's role as stewards of the environment for present and future generations. Nice as it would be to support it, the only really gain is that it is one less source of flak in a campaign that has innumerable sources of flak. And the whole "hide your real actions in legislative functioning" is a move that helps no one.

The thign to do, and the thign which has been done since I wrote the piece, is to go to the American public and tell them why drilling is a dumb idea. Anything less is patronizing, and is as bad as the "hey, we have oil, but that man wants to keep away the oil so your family can't afford groceries" framing that made this an issue. Fearmongering needs to be consistently countered with reason, and it's to every politicians discredit when they underestimate voters and act without full disclosure.

And, not that my responsibility is huge here, but my previous statement, as wonderfully machiavellian as I wish it was, is a disservice. Here's my apology.

Guilt and the Flaw of Anti-Racism

Anti-racism is work that I believe to be incredibly important and almost vital for our society. That said, it's a confusing pile of uncomfortable, guilt, accusations, blame, and competing political philosophies. And the biggest flaw of all is uncertainty in action, which leads to "awareness-raising" and very, very little else.

Awareness by itself does nothing, and awareness that self-propagates is a vicious little thing. And that's how AR work functions when used among those who clearly benefit from privilege. Telling a white person who makes 100k or greater a year that they benefit from an unfair privilege because of their race doesn't go over well, and it only gets harder the more distant a person becomes from obvious signs of wealth and privilege. The resistance that has built around Affirmative Action for decades has a lot to do with those on the low socio-economic end being really upset that another group of low socio-economic folk get an advantage they don't. As they see it, poor's poor, and race doesn't appear to be a big enough factor to warrant special treatment. (As an aside, this is part of why the individualistic and self-made impulses are so strong among the people who would most benefit from welfare state policies - aid has historically been seen as unfair, so it makes more sense to do away with unfair aid instead of expanding aid to everyone).

So awareness by itself is flawed, and leaves either guilt or resistance. Awareness is supposed to be uncomfortable, and guilt/resistance are both reactions to uncomfortableness that cannot be processed. But there's a point to awareness, or it wouldn't be a consistent agent of change. Awareness, if done properly, changes behavior. So then awareness has done a good job changing language, changing some behaviors, and getting rid of the most overt signs of racism. But Anti-Racist activism focuses a lot on institutional racism, which isn't something that can be changed except by either institutional reform or widespread changes public opinion. Institutions are incredibly hard to change by guilting individual members, and structural factors that hinge on race are easily dismissed because they are obscured by the many factors that correlate with race (wealth, education level) and which can be explained as a lack of drive or initiative. Racism, without overt signs, is really hard to change on an individual basis, and almost impossible on an institutional basis.

AR work is incredibly tricky, and when it fails, it fails big. "Whiteness" is not a comfortable topic, not a casual state, and it is such a weird mixing of legacy (early New Englanders, slave importers) and assimilation (Swedes, Irish, Italians et al becoming white after a generation of immigrant experience) that "whiteness" has a wide range of internal interpretations. The "assimilated into privilege" makes the formula much more complicated than "our ancestors are guilt for your suffering", and it's the assimilation that makes all races in the US White versus (racename).

So what's to be done? This dichotomy of white vs other leads to notions like colorblindness, where everyone just doesn't have race be a part of their identity, or at least not an obvious huge defining part of their identity, like it has for many white Americans. Sure, when asked I'll say my race is Welsh, British, and Scottish, but those terms are almost meaningless for me in the US because the unstated "white" identity is so overriding. The classic line goes "much like fish in water, white people in American society are oblivious to the privilege they exist in all the time". The problem with the colorblind solution is that it assumes everyone else will assimilate into that same privilege, and that the only thing stopping them is a race that is part of their identity. Here Anti-Racism doesn't offer a solution so much as destroy a flawed one.

Another common approach is to look at the flawed socio-economics in this nation, and assume that, given the strong correlation of race to class, the problems can all be dealt with by programs that ignore race and just look at economic status. I'm somewhat partial to this plan, and it's informed my attitudes towards changing affirmative action (go meritocracy! don't make the law vulnerable to angry white men!), but that's not a perfect solution. This, too, ignores race and legacies of racial injustice for a classist slant - it would rob affirmative action of the notion that it corrects past wrongs and make it about more equal distribution of wealth, which changes the whole thing. And it treats race as class, which it isn't; it correlates, but that is all. Dynamics of race are different than dynamics of wealth, and while both are unjust and need to be changed, it ignores race to treat it as class, and it confounds things because in the US notions of class are linked to personal performance, and poverty is often seen as an individual failing. While it may address similar ends, race as class isn't the way to go.

Now we're back at square zero, it seems. To affect change in people, AR work has to make them uncomfortable enough to want to radically change their behavior for good. When that fails, people become reactionaries and resistant and are less open to notions of racism as endemic of systems; they'll abstain from meaningful work against organizations with flawed practices because they don't want to confront the guilt of being racist, or of being blind to a system that is racist. But that's if being made uncomfortable fails; should being uncomfortable work, people will now find themselves with a drive to change things (I know I did!), and with very few means of driving that change. If you spread awareness, you risk making a whole bunch of people guilty and resistant or guilty and agitated by how little there is that they can do. Or people could try and engineer individual ways out like colorblindness, which doesn't work and is offensive (in that whole "denying an aspect of humanity" sort of way). People may turn to class politics and understandings, but that is only part of the racial dynamic. When it fails, Anti-Racism work leaves a lot of people bitter and uncomfortable. When it succeeds, it can turn people into agents of change but it doesn't provide many valuable outlets for that energy, and it may burn people out before critical mass to change institutions (by having anti-racists in sufficient number running them) can work. The picture, as it can undoubtedly be painted, is bleak.

There's hope and there's some solace in all of this, though. Firstly, Anti-Racism is a young discipline and movement, which traces its origins back to the early 1990s (as far as I can tell). One of the benefits of spreading awareness rapidly since then is that, while total numbers are small, there are plenty of anti-racist activists working to figure out what to do with the knowledge that anti-racism has given them. This allows anti-racism to be a tool used in other debates, adding it to the side of human dignity. An example: knowledge of drug usage trends + knowledge of disparity in drug sentencing (500x the penalty for black drug crack versus the penalty for white drug cocaine) allows one to look at a flawed system and say, in addition to previous flaws, that it is racist in execution and should be changed. That's a powerful asset. The solace in all of this is that anti-racist work is moral work, it's valuable work, and it wouldn't be done if there weren't a pressing need for it. It's a flawed system currently, but as a moral imperative it is solid. It's why I keep up with AR work despite the criticisms. We'll hit upon the right solution eventually, and until then we can be gadflies who add minds to the collective brainpower trying to engineer a solution. To those skeptical, you have every right to be so, but take solace in the fact that we'll get their. The drive is too strong and the stakes are too high for us to not make it work.

Knoxville

While I was out of town at UU Church Camp, I had a few quick thoughts about a few things.

There was a shooting at a UU church. I'm late to the blogosphere for this, so I'll leave the guttural reaction to webcomicer Jeffry Rowland. Also, he provides this handy link. There's a lot to read through (and in a dark humor sort of way, the "fanny pack around his waist that contained extra shells for his shotgun" is kind of priceless), but the major point is that violence is unacceptable. Just last week I said that all ideas and opinions should be allowed on the table, and I stand by that. But that only goes so far as ideas - murder because of ideological disagreement is always the step too far. Disagreement polarizes, but the fastest way to lose support for a cause is to make your own side appear crazy, disconnected, unreasonable, and dangerous.

Assuming the man had just been discontent, unemployed, and angry at liberalism (and not violent) the appropriate response would be to try and find what is so threatening about the church, and why he felt it was so dangerous. The church's affirming stance towards homosexuality was known, and the article quotes a gem of a phrase from the church website:

The church's Web site states that it has worked for "desegregation, racial harmony, fair wages, women's rights and gay rights" since the 1950s. Current ministries involve emergency aid for the needy, school tutoring and support for the homeless, as well as a cafe that provides a gathering place for gay and lesbian high-schoolers.

In affirming the diversity and the strength of the churches mission, they hit upon an interesting conundrum. They speak to the disenfranchised, the multitude of those who are not historically well-off or empowered in this nation. There is nothing there which reads as sympathetic to the unemployed, angry, down-and-out white male, and that's a shame, because he needs (or needed, before his actions invalidated all hopes of sympathy) a chance at some human dignity, like everyone else the church is adamant about advocating for and helping. The fundamental role of a UU church is, as I see it, to work for human dignity, and we are really good about the historically disenfranchised. We've just got a bit of a problem where it comes to the poor white male, who is angry because talk of privilege is meaningless for him, and there is no way for him to understand how power in his favor could leave him in the state he's in. It's a confusing thing, a frustrating thing, and it is a serious issue that needs re-examination.

But not because the church did anything wrong. We do not need to scour our souls with victims guilt, and we do not need to stumble about deadened by the unfairness of it all. The positive action that can be taken is to see where we can better serve the cause of human dignity. After all, the shooter went after the church not because we had done anything to demean him, but because we have such a strong and visible legacy of advocacy for others. I think we, as a denomination, have the power to take this on as well.

I'll end the blog post unusually, with a reading from a worship at camp:

"Courage, it would seem, is nothing less than the power to overcome danger, misfortune, fear, injustice, while continuing to affirm inwardly that life with all its sorrows is good; that everything is meaningful even if in a sense beyond our understanding; and that there is always tomorrow."
-Dorothy Thompson