On Moral Courage
April/04/2008 21:25 Filed in: Philosophical
Rants
Listening to this speech I am humbled by the power of King's words. There is a great sense of disappointment in his words, yes, but there is a powerful distinction between disappointment and resignation. Disappointment by nature requires a belief in a higher moral ideal as a priori to the standard being upheld, whereas resignation implies moral and spiritual passivity. King clearly believes in a higher ground that America can reach for and indeed calls for a "radical revaluation of values". King is prophetic and could be speaking today:
Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
And later:
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
Reading this, I am led to wonder, where is the moral courage of our age. Where is the strength and fortitude that instills a man like Martin Luther King, who saw injustice and made it his life duty to call it out and to protest it, no matter the consequence. It is certainly in none of our candidates for president. I respect Obama and I perceive strong moral values at his core, but not at the level of King or the movement that once existed in this country. By many standards, the war in Iraq has been a graver injustice than the war in Vietnam. We have spent $3 trillion on a war without pretence, while at home our citizens cannot afford healthcare, our teachers are underpaid, poverty levels continue to rise and now an economic crisis has taken hold. We have spent $3 trillion on a war that has resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 Americans and, lest we forget, the 90,000+ Iraqi citizens that have perished as result of our presence (is it odd that the number 4,000 is boldly in my mind, but I had to scour the web for the civilian toll, which, as it were, is only the documented casualties; thousands more have surely perished). Where is the fury and the moral indignation of the youth? Of the media? When can we finally say enough is enough?
|
'I' before 'We' except after 'You'
January/08/2008 00:00 Filed in: Politics
By now, anybody and everybody not living on a
remote planet is aware of what just happened in
Iowa this past Thursday. In purely literal terms:
Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus. Barack Obama.
What does that mean, exactly, aside from the
literal meaning of it. Let's parse this for a
second.
Barack Obama. He is half black, his father is from Kenya, his mother from Kansas. He is a Junior Senator from Illinois. His father was a muslim and he lived a significant part of his life in Indonesia. No, he did not 'attend a madrassa'.
But, think about it for a second. A country that once based its entire economic model on the enslavement and repression of black, African men and women is one step closer to electing a black man as its president. That is historic. Does that serve as some kind of atonement for America's horrific racial legacy? Not necessarily. In fact, probably not at all. In fact, psychologically, part of Obama's appeal to some white voters is that in their minds it kind of, sort of allows them to quietly repent for their ancestor's wrongdoings. But let's leave that aside for now, because there is something greater at stake.
As cliche as it might seem, think, for a second, about what Obama represents. He is half white and half black. As a human being, he represents a unification, a cross-section of what much of America is. That black/white issue is an issue on which we were divided for so long, for which we fought, struggled, grappled, killed, maimed, shouted, screamed, but ultimately prevailed over. I'm not saying Obama has anything to do with this, simply because he happens to be half white, half black. But being so, and being where he is, he inherently represents a symbol of unity, harmony, consonance. Just by being what he is, where he is.
Then take a look at what he is saying. Obama has centered his campaign around two ideas: 'Hope' and 'Change', and he has done so, with some exceptions, without resorting to cynical partisanship, nasty politicking and negative campaigning. In talking about hope, Obama is essentially offering a prescription badly needed by the majority of Americans. For most of what I can remember of my lifetime, politics has been summarized by polarized soundbites, hardball exchange, dishonest brokering. It's been about right and left, blue states and red states, pro-life and pro-choice, republican and democrat, radical liberal and neo conservative. I cannot remember in my lifetime a moment in which I felt my country was unified. Granted, there are dissidents in every political milieu/era, but it's become much worse than a mere sideshow or a demonstration of courage. It's become the dominant theme. Turn on the news and what do you find? A newscaster jabbering about an issue and then bringing in two new screens: hack from the right, hack from the left. News thus turns into fetishized spectacle, a boxing match in which the viewer is not informed but entertained by witnessing one bludgeon the other incessantly and vice versa. That is how politics has felt to me for a long time. Like bloodsport.
Now, when I turned on my TV on Thursday night to watch the results, I witnessed something that caused something inside me to flicker, just a wink, just a spark, like a long dormant butterfly within. Obama's speech after that victory triggered that switch, rekindled the fire, the political concept of hope. Hope, in this case, of the idea, the mere possibility of unity, of working together, of coming together, despite our differences to make this place better. That is what hope is for Obama - in the face of division, cynicism, bitterness, to believe in the possibility of solidarity and common purpose. That's it.
How do we get there? That's where the 'Change' facet of his campaign comes into play. Obama has characterized the impasse and lack of progress in American politics as a result of the disfunctional system in place, the 'status quo'. Why are we behind on setting standards for the global energy crisis? Why are we behind on Health Care? These are issues we should be tackling as a community, in the case of the former, an issue that we should be setting a high moral standard for the rest of the world to follow! Obama views the current Washington establishment as the reason these things are not getting done. Lobbyists and corporations get into the pockets of politicans and render them weak and ineffectual. Party lines divide politicians and coerce them to reject working together to win kudos from their cronies. Change, he argues, can only be effected from without, not from within.
If you watch the speech, it will be hard for you not to recognize at least an iota of his rhetorical brilliance. I have commented in an earlier post about his speaking troubles during debates, but it's become clear that those 60 second soundbites are not Obama's best format. He is eloquent and dignified in a way that I have not witnessed from a politician in my lifetime, but can only equate to what people must have seen and heard in leaders like JFK and MLK in the 60's. Indeed, I forwarded the video of Obama's speech to my mother, a long time Republican voter, and she had the same reaction. This guy will have serious national appeal, in a way that Hillary Clinton, who is far more divisive, can not.
Critics will mention that Obama remains nebulous on policy issues, and that he mentioned very little about specific political changes he plans to implement in his Iowa speech. That he is all talk and no action. This, of course, is the Clinton response. It's all they've got to go one. His lack of experience. Having watched a number of these debates, however, I'll come to the defense of Obama. After all, I was once a critic of Obama myself for some of the very same reasons. Firstly, let me say that that speech was neither the time nor the place to get into detailed policy but the time for an inspiring victory rally, the moment to summon his constituents and more. Obama needed that moment to say, hey, not only can I beat Hillary Clinton, I can garner more women voters than she can, more Independent voters than she can and more Republican voters than she can. What's more, I can do that in a state that is 95% WHITE. No longer does the 'white people will never vote for a black president' argument hold up. So, this speech was more about Obama saying, I've been talking all along about my desire to unify this country, now look at this small sample size and see what my potential is. Despite what everyone said was impossible, look at what we can do.
As far as policy goes, one of the reasons it is hard to distinguish the candidates on a lot of issues, is that more or less they agree on most of them. There are a few distinctions (Kucinich being the major one), but also some of the candidates' characteristics differ. Obama did not vote for the war, Clinton and Edwards did (Edwards apologized, Clinton did not). All three of 'the big three' support health care. Obama's health care plan enforces health care for all children and seeks to lower costs drastically so that health care becomes affordable to all. Clinton's plan, instead, forces all American's to have healthcare (the Clintonistas have used this distinction to paint Obama's plan as non-universal since it does not REQUIRE all Americans to purchase healthcare, but simply makes it affordable to do so. This is stupid). All three have the exact same energy policy, none of them support a Carbon tax. There are some other minor distinctions, but for the most part there are not GRAVE differences in policy amongst these candidates. That leaves voters to think about who can most effectively bring about these policy changes, who can restore our moral leadership and impression around the world. Right now, they side with Obama because A. he has no baggage (the Clinton era, despite many of its accomplishments, was rife with divisiveness) and B. because he is inspiring and incredibly intelligent and C. because he seems like the candidate who is least in it for his own ego and most in it for the good of the American people.
On that note, take a look at both Hillary's concession speech in Iowa and contrast it to Obama's victory speech:
What is remarkable, Hillary's awkwardness and Obama's rhetorical prowess aside, is how egocentric Clinton's speech is and how self-deflating and other-directed Obama's is. Clinton's is all I/Me and Obama's is all You/We. And, as a nation, I think we're all ready to be invited back into the political process once and for all.
Barack Obama. He is half black, his father is from Kenya, his mother from Kansas. He is a Junior Senator from Illinois. His father was a muslim and he lived a significant part of his life in Indonesia. No, he did not 'attend a madrassa'.
But, think about it for a second. A country that once based its entire economic model on the enslavement and repression of black, African men and women is one step closer to electing a black man as its president. That is historic. Does that serve as some kind of atonement for America's horrific racial legacy? Not necessarily. In fact, probably not at all. In fact, psychologically, part of Obama's appeal to some white voters is that in their minds it kind of, sort of allows them to quietly repent for their ancestor's wrongdoings. But let's leave that aside for now, because there is something greater at stake.
As cliche as it might seem, think, for a second, about what Obama represents. He is half white and half black. As a human being, he represents a unification, a cross-section of what much of America is. That black/white issue is an issue on which we were divided for so long, for which we fought, struggled, grappled, killed, maimed, shouted, screamed, but ultimately prevailed over. I'm not saying Obama has anything to do with this, simply because he happens to be half white, half black. But being so, and being where he is, he inherently represents a symbol of unity, harmony, consonance. Just by being what he is, where he is.
Then take a look at what he is saying. Obama has centered his campaign around two ideas: 'Hope' and 'Change', and he has done so, with some exceptions, without resorting to cynical partisanship, nasty politicking and negative campaigning. In talking about hope, Obama is essentially offering a prescription badly needed by the majority of Americans. For most of what I can remember of my lifetime, politics has been summarized by polarized soundbites, hardball exchange, dishonest brokering. It's been about right and left, blue states and red states, pro-life and pro-choice, republican and democrat, radical liberal and neo conservative. I cannot remember in my lifetime a moment in which I felt my country was unified. Granted, there are dissidents in every political milieu/era, but it's become much worse than a mere sideshow or a demonstration of courage. It's become the dominant theme. Turn on the news and what do you find? A newscaster jabbering about an issue and then bringing in two new screens: hack from the right, hack from the left. News thus turns into fetishized spectacle, a boxing match in which the viewer is not informed but entertained by witnessing one bludgeon the other incessantly and vice versa. That is how politics has felt to me for a long time. Like bloodsport.
Now, when I turned on my TV on Thursday night to watch the results, I witnessed something that caused something inside me to flicker, just a wink, just a spark, like a long dormant butterfly within. Obama's speech after that victory triggered that switch, rekindled the fire, the political concept of hope. Hope, in this case, of the idea, the mere possibility of unity, of working together, of coming together, despite our differences to make this place better. That is what hope is for Obama - in the face of division, cynicism, bitterness, to believe in the possibility of solidarity and common purpose. That's it.
How do we get there? That's where the 'Change' facet of his campaign comes into play. Obama has characterized the impasse and lack of progress in American politics as a result of the disfunctional system in place, the 'status quo'. Why are we behind on setting standards for the global energy crisis? Why are we behind on Health Care? These are issues we should be tackling as a community, in the case of the former, an issue that we should be setting a high moral standard for the rest of the world to follow! Obama views the current Washington establishment as the reason these things are not getting done. Lobbyists and corporations get into the pockets of politicans and render them weak and ineffectual. Party lines divide politicians and coerce them to reject working together to win kudos from their cronies. Change, he argues, can only be effected from without, not from within.
If you watch the speech, it will be hard for you not to recognize at least an iota of his rhetorical brilliance. I have commented in an earlier post about his speaking troubles during debates, but it's become clear that those 60 second soundbites are not Obama's best format. He is eloquent and dignified in a way that I have not witnessed from a politician in my lifetime, but can only equate to what people must have seen and heard in leaders like JFK and MLK in the 60's. Indeed, I forwarded the video of Obama's speech to my mother, a long time Republican voter, and she had the same reaction. This guy will have serious national appeal, in a way that Hillary Clinton, who is far more divisive, can not.
Critics will mention that Obama remains nebulous on policy issues, and that he mentioned very little about specific political changes he plans to implement in his Iowa speech. That he is all talk and no action. This, of course, is the Clinton response. It's all they've got to go one. His lack of experience. Having watched a number of these debates, however, I'll come to the defense of Obama. After all, I was once a critic of Obama myself for some of the very same reasons. Firstly, let me say that that speech was neither the time nor the place to get into detailed policy but the time for an inspiring victory rally, the moment to summon his constituents and more. Obama needed that moment to say, hey, not only can I beat Hillary Clinton, I can garner more women voters than she can, more Independent voters than she can and more Republican voters than she can. What's more, I can do that in a state that is 95% WHITE. No longer does the 'white people will never vote for a black president' argument hold up. So, this speech was more about Obama saying, I've been talking all along about my desire to unify this country, now look at this small sample size and see what my potential is. Despite what everyone said was impossible, look at what we can do.
As far as policy goes, one of the reasons it is hard to distinguish the candidates on a lot of issues, is that more or less they agree on most of them. There are a few distinctions (Kucinich being the major one), but also some of the candidates' characteristics differ. Obama did not vote for the war, Clinton and Edwards did (Edwards apologized, Clinton did not). All three of 'the big three' support health care. Obama's health care plan enforces health care for all children and seeks to lower costs drastically so that health care becomes affordable to all. Clinton's plan, instead, forces all American's to have healthcare (the Clintonistas have used this distinction to paint Obama's plan as non-universal since it does not REQUIRE all Americans to purchase healthcare, but simply makes it affordable to do so. This is stupid). All three have the exact same energy policy, none of them support a Carbon tax. There are some other minor distinctions, but for the most part there are not GRAVE differences in policy amongst these candidates. That leaves voters to think about who can most effectively bring about these policy changes, who can restore our moral leadership and impression around the world. Right now, they side with Obama because A. he has no baggage (the Clinton era, despite many of its accomplishments, was rife with divisiveness) and B. because he is inspiring and incredibly intelligent and C. because he seems like the candidate who is least in it for his own ego and most in it for the good of the American people.
On that note, take a look at both Hillary's concession speech in Iowa and contrast it to Obama's victory speech:
What is remarkable, Hillary's awkwardness and Obama's rhetorical prowess aside, is how egocentric Clinton's speech is and how self-deflating and other-directed Obama's is. Clinton's is all I/Me and Obama's is all You/We. And, as a nation, I think we're all ready to be invited back into the political process once and for all.