Submitted to a Candid World

On the morning July 7, 2005, when terrorist attacks on the London Tube claimed the lives of 52 British men and women, I had just tapped into the District Line at Earl’s Court on my way to work at Westminster.  As news of the attacks trickled through the communications lines, my train was stopped between stations, held, and eventually stopped at South Kensington, where TfL personnel ordered confused commuters off the train.  We weren’t told why - one official-looking fellow mentioned a “power surge” -  but by the time I walked to Parliament, the Uzis in the hands of the guards outside Portcullis House gave me all I needed to know.  This was no power surge.

Over the next week, I became immensely proud of the way the British people reacted to the tragedy.  Possibly because London had faced terrorism before, in the form of the IRA - hence the annoying lack of garbage cans on the nonetheless bizarrely pristine London streets - the nation rolled with the punch.  I was even told by one Londoner that this had been expected for some time.  Most importantly, and most impressively, the British people refused the temptation to, in the wake of tragedy, give in to anger, violence, xenophobia, and hatred.  At Prime Minister’s Questions the very next week, both parties came together to speak against blaming the atrocity on Muslims as a group, and to blast the extremist British National Party for trying to score cheap political points:

Robert Flello (MP, Labour): I, too, commend and praise the police and security services for their swift and effective identification of the evil extremists who brought death and misery to our streets last week. Will the Prime Minister join me, however, in condemning those right-wing extremists in the British National party, in Barking and elsewhere, who are cynically and sickly trying to exploit people’s tragedy, anguish and understandable anger over the barbaric attack in order to score cheap but dangerous political points? Does not the British National party shame itself and slur the word “British”?

Tony Blair (PM, Labour): I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. If we are right in saying that these terrorist attacks are an attack on our way of life, it is most important to say that part of our way of life is tolerance and respect for other people of different races, religions and faiths. It is therefore particularly revolting for anyone to try to exploit these attacks for the purpose of racism.

What an important message, spoken at such an important time.  Going beyond Mr. Flello and Mr. Blair, to cave to xenophobia and appropriate tragedy to political gain is to give the terrorists what they want: a change for the worst in a democratic, civilized, freedom-loving people.  Terrorism succeeds not by death, but by playing upon our fears and bringing out the worst in all of us.

In our own situation, to invoke 9/11 to limit liberty, to turn misguided rage into misguided war, or to attack political opponents, is to hand terrorism a victory.  But if we respond to terrorism with the best in all of us, national tragedies can even become opportunities to strengthen democracy, by re-affirming our commitments to liberty and pluralism, in spite of sorrow, fear, and foes.

Alas for those of us who still haven’t gotten that message.

If you’ve ever argued with someone on the far right, the type that drinks daily from the cup of Human Events and WorldNetDaily, you’ve likely heard and become familiar with the argument that Darwin and Margaret Sanger were racist eugenecists; ergo evolution, abortion, and family planning are racist and evil. Sadly, these bits of spin have become “mainstream,” through such breathtaking works of staggering genius as Expelled, and bear commentary.

Let’s pretend this is a motion for summary judgment, and accept all of “plaintiff’s” allegations of fact as true, just for the sake of argument. So, let’s assume that Sanger and Darwin were both monsters who wanted to “select” or “engineer” away other racists. What of it?

The answer is, nothing. Especially in the case of science, where the idea evolves exponentially beyond its original conception, a “founder’s” personal beliefs are practically meaningless. More generally, there’s no concept “original sin” in philosophy; provided a belief system does not retain the bigoted beliefs of its adherents, it retains none of the guilt for the same. If a philosophy, like a snowball rolling down the incline of history, gathered all the scum of its adherents, no idea would be innocent. All of Christianity would be counted a murderer (the Crusades), all of Islam the same (the wars of expansion), and even democracy and America would be irredeemable (the Indian wars). The mere fact of the continuance of history requires us to forgive the sins of our ideological fathers, and focus on the present. Since conservatives so readily agree that historical revisionism is a flawed way of looking at the world, it’s odd (or, unsurprising) that fundamentalist conservatives forget that simple truth when it comes to ideas they don’t like.

About half of the internet has been trying to sort out and properly react to Barack Obama’s alleged turn to center on FISA, the death penalty, and a few other issues.

The other half would’ve joined the party, but they were busy captioning pictures of cats.

I’ve resolved the issue to my personal satisfaction by reasoning that Obama’s “rightward turn” might be partly attributed to a heartfelt desire to reach across the aisle and be every person’s president, and partly chalked up to simple politics, both of which are fine by me.  But why listen to a law student when you could listen to a law professor?  Kyron Huigens of Cardozo Law reasons that Obama’s turn is not a turn at all, but rather explained by his principled beliefs in the way the law works.  I think he’s probably on the right path.

And this, my friends, is why you want an “elitist” as a president.  The Bush years have so blinded us by partisan gamesmanship that we’re looking for spin when there may not be any: “what’s that crazy Obama kid trying to prove?”  For once, we might just have a candidate who’s researched the issues, thought long and hard about them, and reached an intellectual conclusion.  He may not be as fun to sit down and have a beer with as George W. Bush, but when the tab comes, at least Barack Obama can calculate the tip.

Sometimes I think that George W. Bush must be either a cruel joke played on us by some malevolent will, or at least a national nightmare from which we shall surely wake. Setting aside his policy errors, the man’s personal foibles are too hilarious to be real. Bush’s last G8 summit, just completed, caps a legacy of painfully awkward international faux pas’ worthy of “Office” legends Michael Scott or Dwight Shrute. In honor of the end of this era of free comedy, a short recap of the depths of lapsed dignity and decorum plumbed by our President, in the form of lessons learned:

• Apparently, heads of state are unaccustomed to free massages, or, perhaps, to being groped without notice by fellow world leaders. At an earlier G8 summit, upon meeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Bush proceeded to give her a back rub, in the manner of Buster Bluth. “Heyyy, Chancellor…” Watch the video; her appalled facial expression is well worth the click.
• In what surely must come as a shock, British Monarchs don’t like being flirted with, or winked at (video).  Especially by the self-styled black sheep of a formerly respected political family.
• Making stereotypical ethnic jokes is a cool way to defuse the tension of a first meeting.  Hey, Gordon Brown liked it.
• Italians don’t speak Mexican Spanish: apparently Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi doesn’t answer to the Spanish word, “amigo.”
• When an assembled group of world leaders spends years trying to get you to own up to the damage you’re causing to the environment, they don’t like being reminded of how little you care what they think. This suggests that, “goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter,” might not be the best choice of parting words.

International diplomacy just might be one of those places where a little elitism goes a long way.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, but I haven’t heard the name “Jeremiah Wright” in a while. Nor have I heard much about anyone being “bitter.” Although the enduring truth of this assessment will have to wait until November, it may prove true that Hillary Clinton, by trotting out some of the major foibles of the Obama campaign early in the primary season, deprived the McCain campaign of the opportunity to use them to discredit Obama when it actually mattered… as in, now. The American electorate, being a composition of single individuals, has an attention span and capacity for memory of current events akin to that of any individual. So, the effectiveness of a smear campaign varies on the strategic nature of its deployment.

The Time Value of Dirty Politicking

A well-timed public relations disclosure, regardless of its veracity, can spell disaster (Swiftboat Veterans for Defamation Truth), while truthful information that comes too late (Bush’s DUI conviction, disclosed on the eve of the 2000 Election) can be irrelevant. I think we’re about to see a new case: if a talking point is put into action too early, it loses its effect faster than an overplayed Top-40 Britney hit.

Of course, counterexamples abound. The issues of Kerry’s elitism and incomprehensibility to the common man (”I voted for it before I voted against it”), broached in the spring of 2004, both survived as potent themes and venues of attack until the fall election. But that’s due in no small part to Kerry’s incompetence. He continued to play into the role the Bush team had crafted for him. If you’re trying to dodge the “elitist” label, you don’t go windsurfing, and if you do, you can expect old smears and old missteps to be reincorporated into the next spin cycle. Making the same mistakes over and over again just gives the opposition an invitation to dredge up the old ones.

There’s every reason to think Obama’s case will be distinguishable from Kerry’s; his image related mistakes per week have dropped drastically since spring, and it’s come to be viewed as tactless and puerile to repeatedly harp on Obama’s “difference” from white America. “Look, he’s wearing a turban!” Oooooh, I’m scared. Hopefully, we’ve moved on.

What, Too Soon?

But we’re not invulnerable. A wise campaign would still keep a tight leash on Obama’s public image, and play down his vulnerabilities wherever possible. Sadly, some liberal groups and media outlets aren’t playing along. Outside of the “Colbert Report” - and even then, I’m not sure how I like it - it’s too soon to start making fun of the way Obama’s enemies want him portrayed. We risk dredging up and re-activating the very images that we thought were dead. Apparently the New Yorker hasn’t gotten that memo. And, neither has MoveOn.org. As much as I love MoveOn’s platform, they seem singularly incapable of doing anything with grace or tact. According to a recent e-mail sent to supporters, the PAC may soon start selling buttons displaying the “terrorist fist jab.”

Definitely too soon. While it’s good to show that we’re not afraid of difference, let’s not be foolhardy about it. A lot of Americans are afraid, or at least suspicious, of what makes Barack Obama different than previous presidential candidates. Not playing into their fears, and smugly acting like we’re completely invulnerable to a continued assault along those lines, might be a good campaign tactic. Let’s not “bring it on” just yet.

There are two ways to interpret our national experiences in the war on terror, and the tragedies that have flowed from it both at home and abroad: we can blame Islam, or we can blame fundamentalism. Either militant fundamentalism is flawed, and causes tragedy and ignorance by blinding rational individuals and labeling all nonbelievers as less-than-human, or there’s something about Islam that makes militant fundamentalism, otherwise a benign construct, into something nasty.

I’m sad to say that a good deal of Americans have decided not to look up the funnel of abstraction for the culprit, but have instead settled on the easy way out: blaming Islam. That’s the only way I can explain “Christians” who somehow think it’s acceptable, and in line with their beliefs, to wish death on nonbelievers.

Even our rhetoric is still geared towards the acceptance of fundamentalist and militant non-Islamic religion. Take, for example, Campus Crusade for Christ. No, please, take it. Not even the temporal distance we have from the malignant and bellicose origins of the word “crusade” can excuse its use by an evangelizing organization to define its plans for the nonbelievers - “turning lost students into Christ-centered laborers,” indeed. That “Cru” is “appropriating,” “subverting,” “redeeming,” or “detoxifying” the word is no defense to the tactlessness of its use. We ought to be as offended by the implication of a “Crusade for Christ” as we would be by a “Campus Jihad for Allah.”

Militant religion - and indeed, any religion that demands the destruction, dehumanization, or subordination of nonbelievers or believers - is flat-out wrong. Intolerance isn’t invidious just when it’s done to us, and discrimination doesn’t become an offense to liberty just because a burka’s involved. Our fight against violent theocracy gives us the chance to recognize similar problems in our own society. Let’s not pass up the chance to build peace and liberty at home, while we build peace and liberty abroad.

Risky business.

America loves a maverick.  Born as a confederacy and forged in a revolution, we’re (unsurprisingly) suspicious of strong government, and, as a consequence, identifying oneself as a “rogue” who “plays by their own rules” is one of the best image patterns a politician can undertake to create. That’s part of the reason that America - and, until Obama came along, the mainstream media - fell in love with John McCain.  He’s not afraid of crossing the aisle, and in 2000 represented the moderate, true conservative wing of the Republican party, when Bush tried to take it down the road to theocracy.

But, there’s reason to doubt that a maverick legislator would a maverick executive make.  The role of the Executive is vitally different from, and often completely at odds with, the role of the role of the legislator.  That’s part of the reason we’ve not elected a sitting Senator since John F. Kennedy.  While the skills transfer between roles, they don’t necessarily transfer well, or at least unmodified.

For one, while a maverick legislator spends their time opposing, or at least redefining, the Institution, a sitting president is the Institution.  Yes, that’s merely a rhetorical trick.  But there’s something to it. The constituency, duties, and ties of a President are vastly different and more binding than those of a Senator.  There’s a certain inertia and restrictiveness to the Presidency, owing to the interdependency of the office: a President is not his own man (or woman) in the way a Senator is.  This is not to say that a “maverick” can’t change the Office, but it’s a different and more difficult task, not to be assumed of even the most experienced legislator.

And, there are decisions that simply do not accommodate a “maverick” outlook on things.  How a conservative-leaning maverick’s outlook on the Supreme Court differs from a conservative’s perspective on the issue is completely beyond me.  And, as we know, McCain isn’t trying to be a “maverick” on that issue - he’s outright told us he’ll appoint extremist conservatives, with the help of one of America’s true nutbags (Brownback).  And the stakes can’t be higher for that one.

Being a Barack Obama fan is a bit of a roller coaster.  The man does almost everything right.  Everything.  He compromises where necessary, he’s open and honest about religion, and he periodically knocks one out of the park with a grand, populist gesture… sometimes, perhaps, too often.

But oh, the pain.  I submit to you two ironclad rules of American politics, both drawn from the anti-elitist, anti-intellectual meme that has run silently throughout American politics since the Founding, and now resurfaced with a vengeance:

• Americans do not like being talked down to by our politicians, even if the politicians doing the lecturing are sympathizing with our inadequacies. The Romans hated Cato the Elder (no matter what Plutarch said), and, sadly, we too hate the self-improvement centered politicians, wherever they may crop up.  We want an avatar, not a lecturer, regardless of how badly we may need the latter.
• Americans do not like being compared negatively to Europe. The Europeans are like America’s older siblings, and a politician who measures us by Europe strikes a decidedly parental and patronizing tone.  Avoid.  But it’s worse: comparisons with Europe cut against our foundation myth, which centers upon us being the perfection of Europe, the city-upon-a-hill that rose above religious and ideological differences to welcome all to the land of the free.  Stacking America against Europe sells the story out.  If you need an example of the disaster that can spring from avoiding this rule, anyone with a memory longer than three years ought to recall how Kerry’s French connection immediately set him at odds with the people.  A smart politician would steer clear of that third rail.

And, while Obama’s a smart politician… I guess we all make mistakes.  Criticizing Americans for only being mono-lingual?  And using French, of all languages, as the example?  Really?  Ugh.  Let’s not have a repeat of the Great Windsurfing Disaster of Aught-Four.

Also, a very good comment on elitism by Collin, here.

I’ve always found it amazing that the Republican party, whose platform stipulates a top-down personal morality and consists largely of pushing through tax breaks for the wealthy, has managed to label the Democrats as elitist. I suppose we have the Reagan realignment to blame, whereby lower-class voters were suckered from the Democrats (who promised them a better economic future) to the Republicans (who promised them a chance to talk about religion), but the co-option of the “elitist” label goes even farther. Liberal politicians are viewed as the privileged few, while Yale-educated Republican politicians powered by old Connecticut money waltz into the White House just because they spend a few days a year in Texas. If we were to have an “elitism-off,” and set all the hybrid cars, iPhones, Starbucks double-shot mocha frappucinos (no foam, please), and Barnes & Noble memberships of Democratic politicians against the Martha’s Vineyard vacations of Republican politicians, I believe we Democrats would lose hands down.

Luckily, every now and again, a crack emerges in the spin-coated veneer of the Republican image, and we get a view of what they’re really thinking. Ah, there it is. For worrying about the economy, we’re “a nation of whiners.” Just lovely. If Barack Obama - or one of his staffers - had said that, I’d be able to look out my office window and see it plastered on the sides of buildings already: “OBAMA THINKS YOU’RE A WHINER,” or some such. In fact, Obama has made some comparable slip ups - though they’ve blissfully since faded - and that was pretty close to the reaction. I seriously doubt Phill Gramm’s comment will get the same play on the Fox News ticker. But time will tell.

And, on a side note, I’m surprised to see that people are still looking into the issue of whether McCain is even eligible for the presidency, owing to the peculiarities of his birthplace. He’ll run, regardless of the issue, and it would be a political suicide to try to derail the McCain campaign on a legal technicality. The fact is, sometimes the law just doesn’t matter.

Barack Obama is a once in a lifetime candidate.  After eight years of divisiveness, we have a candidate who - quite apart from favoring serious, progressive policies to put America back on track - actually wants to work across the aisle and rebuild a collegial, functioning government.  We’ll have a true President of the United States, rather than a President of the Bible Belt.  There’s truth to Obama’s (considerable) hype - we have a lot to be excited about.

But.  Even for the best of candidates, there are compromises to be made, for the sake of fairness, and for the sake of expedience.  Coalitions and presidencies are never built on unswerving pursuit of an ideological party line, and even when they are, the country’s worse off for it (look where we are now).  When Democrats, like Kos, expect Obama to never deviate from Kos-style liberalism, they expect him to change the way politics works, and not for the better.  Liberalism imports subordination of passion to reason; we ought to bend when we have to, for the larger good.  Politics in a democracy, especially a democracy still suspicious of the word “Liberal,” means that Obama cannot be a model Daily-Kos-style Democrat.  Deal with it.  Certainly there’s an element of betrayal here - Kos democrats made Obama.  But candidate and (soon-) President Obama belongs to the American people, not to the narrow interests that got him to where he is.  Isn’t that independence, after all, what we admired about Obama in the first place?

More importantly - and more cynically - we can’t expect that, because we have an honest candidate, politics will all of a sudden be 100% honest, transparent, and above-the-table.  Politics is not sunshine and blossoms. Sometimes we as Democrats have to read the signals, guess what’s going on, intercept the code, and learn to listen for the spin.

Example: Obama on gay rights.  Yes, thank you, “Confluence,” for pointing out that Obama says he isn’t a fan of gay rights.  But that’s cheap talk.  Obama can oppose gay rights all he wants, but it’s not something he will have control over as president.  His Supreme Court picks, who will be equal-protection-clause-expansion liberals like you and me, will make the call on gay rights issues.  Obama wants his Supreme Court to protect “people who may be vulnerable in the political process.” What do you think that means?  It’s barely-concealed code for “gay rights.”  Do you want to make him say it clearer, and blow the whole game?

I realize it may hurt a few feelings for Obama to stand against a group that’s already been beaten up enough - talk about picking on the Bush administration’s scapegoat! - but his anti-gay rights stance is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”  He has to say things like this to get elected.  No political campaign is conducted 100% above the table.  Watch the signs; watch the hands.

So, Democrats, I realize some of you may feel neglected, or “thrown under the bus.”  But realize that compromises have to be made, and learn to separate talk from spin, and read the signs correctly.  And then, fall the hell into line.  Even if you don’t think Obama needs your help, he does.  To turn Ben Franklin’s quote around, if we don’t hang together on this one, we won’t be hanging alone come November: under four more years of Republican rule, America will be hanging with us.  Join together.  Save the state.  Fall into line.