epicaricacy ([info]epicaricacy) wrote,
@ 2004-11-04 11:11:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
a Democrat's retrospective
[my apologies in advance to those of you that have heard enough about politics for the time being--what follows will be seen by you as a rant, and it might be best to ignore it]


A Swedish friend of mine is indicative of the reaction of the world when he says he's amazed that moral character could trump real issues in this past election.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi agrees with him: in an interview on The Morning After, she emphasized that Democrats will stand firm on the issues, where Republicans rely on demagoguery.

But I disagree. Democrats are missing the point of a representative democracy: that when we go to the polls, we select someone who can represent not only our views on specific known issues, but can also react to new issues in sympathy with our deepest convictions about how life and the world work. This second role became even more important after the terrorist attacks in 2001, because it was an overriding issue that no one had talked about in the 2000 election.

Why have Democrats shied away from emphasizing morals? Because they are perceived as a hodge-podge collection of society's minorities and left-behinds, each with its own, separate bone to pick against the dominant, white, male, heterosexual, Christian upper/middle-class majority. How could we possibly fashion a moral system out of such a variety of issues, and could such a rag-tag group ever stand firm behind it?

Certainly! In fact, I believe that this collection of issues already stems from a common moral framework that is _stronger_ than the conservative moral "system". We believe in the dignity of mankind. We believe in emphasizing the future: in acting conservatively to benefit the world in which our children will live, in supporting our children themselves with top-quality education and job opportunities, and in securing a nation and world in which they will have the chance to engage civilly. We believe in opportunity - not the illusion of opportunity provided by an uncontrolled market system, but the real opportunity to self-actualize, free from the crippling effects of prejudice on any basis and free from the constraints of an overbearing police-state. For some of us, we also believe in works driven by faith, a notion mentioned by John Kerry, but also _the_ core teaching of Jesus, one of history's great proponents of social justice who has unfortunately been co-opted for narrower-minded causes. John Kerry, in fact, exhibited strong moral character in this campaign (and that's one of the main reasons he got my vote), but you had to listen carefully to discern it because he did not do a good job of articulating it.

Do you still doubt the Democrats' moral framework? Just watch any episode of The West Wing's first few seasons. Aaron Sorkin and his talented cast faithfully portrayed the coherent convictions that we should be able to identify in ourselves.

Our issues stem from these beliefs. I've only mentioned a few concepts off the top of my head, but you can connect any of the Democrats' platforms to them and other similar ones. The moral framework is there, we need only recognize it.

And what of the conservative moral character? The Republican party is the real patchwork of beliefs. The party that emphasizes independence of families from government has enlarged the role of Big Brother. The party that believes in leaving no one behind has pushed more and more people away from opportunity. The party that emphasizes Christian social notions has rejected its core teachings by facilitating hate and exclusion over love and justice.

In the next two years (yes, two--'06 will be a pivotal year for Congress) we need to expose the moral inconsistencies of the conservative agenda by aggressively pushing our issues. (Wait, "issues"? I thought this was about "morals"?) Yes, it's about morals, but we need to ostensibly push issues. Our rhetoric, however, should clearly connect the dots between the issues and our moral framework. Don't be afraid of Christianity, it is still a dominant force in this country but one that can be turned to good by exposing its consistency with Democratic issues. These approaches will give our representatives confidence, a self-assuredness that we see in Bush as smarminess, but that in fact we should deservedly have in our own representatives. This confidence and consistency when talking about morally-grounded issues is our secret weapon. Go forth!

[Joel Franklin]

(24 comments) - (Post a new comment)

"I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:26 pm UTC (link)
...I'm a Democrat." or at least that's what Will Rogers said.

[ disclaimer 1 -- this is yet another mail on recent politics. apologies if you are tired of it. feel free to ignore it as you see fit

disclaimer 2 -- there are lots of random people on the to line. by all means be picky with your replies if you want ;-) ]

personally, i consider myself more of an independent who is not such a fan of the party system, but i digress.

joel, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. i too have been thinking a lot about values and beliefs in light of the election. i've had a lot of recent discussions with folks, and to sum up my thoughts so far...i just wanted to share some reflections on beliefs, and perhaps help add to the framework that you so eloquently described.

So with that, I believe:

We are immensely powerful both as an individual and as a community -- though we might not always recognize it

We all have something to offer in our journey in making this a better place for those who come after us

Together, we have the skills, knowledge, and experience to realize our future

Compassion, communication, collaboration, and community are not intangibles, but rather the nourishment what we must do

To honor each other and to fully realize the potential of this representative democracy we must bring as many people to the table as possible

The past is prologue and the future -- how, what, and why -- is up to us to design and implement

We are a great nation that can be even greater

The incredible work of others has gotten us this far and that the best is yet to come

Every person has a right to realize their full potential

Our vision is only limited by not daring to dream big

Don't "believe" me? Too touchy feely and kumbayaish? Just think on these examples...one woman spearheaded an international campaign to ban landmines and won the nobel peace prize. or how about the power of a cell phone in changing the the lives and economies of small towns throughout India? if you want to look at a pop culture reference, as cheezy as it is, look at a show like "Extreme Makeover -- Home Edition" where ABC, Sears, and a community literally change the lives of those in a family for the better. and locally, a gaming related site called penny arcade runs a toy drive for kids in hospitals each holiday season (donation info http://www.childsplaycharity.org/)

We have a great system of government in place. Can it be better? Of course. After 200 some years, progress has been made and we have learned a great deal. This is a process that contantly occurs and we have more to learn and more things to improve.

The traditional proverb of it takes a village to raise a child is only partially right, in my opinion. yes it takes a village, but it also takes all of us -- acting collectively and individually to raise said child.

like joel said, there is a lot of work to be done in the next two years, if we want to impact the national level. please also remember that there is also a lot of work to be done locally in the next year (several city and county positions are up for election in 2005). the challenges facing us locally on Nov 1, 2004 (transportation, affordable housing, the cost of education, jobs, healthcare) have not gone away.

[

book plug digression

loosely related, for more info on morality in politics, I read an interesting book called "don't think of an elephant," by George Lakoff. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1931498717/qid=1099599541/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-3798083-2661436)

he also wrote a book called "Moral Politics." I haven't read the latter, but he does describe a frame by which progressive types can better articulate their values and morals to the public as a means of balancing out this system of government we have.

]

anywho, with that, let's get to work!

best, bh

[Brian H]

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:28 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for all of the thoughtful words. I feel as if I'm entering an ongoing conversation...which is always fun (you can interpret anything any way you want), but I have a few thoughts that may or may not be appreciated. Oh by the way, my name is Josh.

I think most important is that Americans need to address this idea of democracy that we have, because in fact, we are not a democracy (perhaps a bastard cousin or something would be a more appropriate nomenclature). We are a republic, for better or worse. We are lead to believe our system promotes the common good. Our system elects representatives that REPRESENT the vested interests of their constituents. Kind of like a CEO selected by a board. And the efficacy of that representative is measured by the success that leader has in communicating the will of those who have elected them.

Alternatively, a democratic system would elect leaders to facilitate the needs and dimensions of the people as a whole and make decisions based on their engagement with everyone. This would be nice, but it's not what we have. We have a system that prizes exclusion, foments differences and needs "others" to mobilize segments of the electorate that will grant them the most decision-making power. I think a good case in point is this past election. Success was contingent not on expanding the landscape of ideas and amplifying new voices, but on making clear to those who mattered (repeat
voters) who they are by making it clear who they were not. And a system like this will never, can never act in collective interest of everyone.

One last note. A recent report (sorry, I have no validating website to
pander) rated about 167 'democractic' nations (criteria: that they hold public elections, I think) on voter participation. Where do you thing the USA ranked?

162nd.

That's American democracy. Whether apathy or oppression is the root cause of that number, one thing is usually clear: every system designs their outcomes. 162nd out of 167 isn't coincidence. It's what is needed. Unfortunately, if your anyone that doesn't look, sound, or resemble those who vote (white protestants and their allies), than your needs probably wont get meet through the system that values you only in terms of anecdotal evidence on who those white protestants don't want to become.

Sorry for the pessimism, but I'm a systems thinker, not an empiricist. Much love to those who tried to turn the tides, and regret to those who couldn't see that the major and most frightening difference between the two candidates was not their vision of America, but that one holds the belief that there are human beings within our borders who just shouldn't be here (gays, feminists, minorities, any non-protestant practicing religious person, children who would rather run than read, etc...) and thinks the purpose of the constitution is to make sure they don't thrive and pursuit happiness.


Josh

[Josh H]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:31 pm UTC (link)
I have met some on this list, but not others. Keep in mind that I an a pretty middle of the road Independent. Just a couple of points I thought I would throw into the discussion.

Switzerland has a lower rate of participation than the US. There is an inverse correlation between the wealth of a country and voter participation. The more affluent a society, the less they require from the government, the less they feel a need to participate in the voting process. That is one reason that people under 30 vote at a 17% rate. They are living off their parents, perhaps going to school, and then later just start to make money in the real world. Most likely they aren't married or have kids. Government doesn't intrude of these people's lives, in fact, it doesn't even touch them. Once these people get married, start having kids, and then sending them off to school, things change. Now voter participation increases dramatically because government is a more active part of their lives. Retired people vote at a high rate because they live off of social security, thus government is very much a part of their lives (and survival). If some people choose not to participate, how can a representative Republic appropriately account for their wishes and desires (if they even have any) on a particular issue?

By some accounts, Bush increased his share of the Hispanic vote by 10% (to 40%?, perhaps that was just Florida). Bush increased his vote of the black vote to 11-12% from 9% (20-25% increase). For the first time ever (recorded at least) more Catholics voted for a Republican than a Democrat. I might remind you that Kerry is Catholic. What do all three of those constituents have in common, and why did these different cultures shift?

Are Republicans still the party of the rich? The average per capita income of Blue States is more than 30% more than the Red States. Go county by county, the Blue areas are metropolitan where income is substantially higher, the read areas tend to be rural. Even suburbs are turning Blue. Republicans are the party of choice for those making between 50k-100k. Democrats are the choice for those making less than 50k and more than 100k. Here are the differences, so where lies the divide?

Brian hit on this earlier, is it better to have government fix societies ills or is it better to have the individuals in society volunteering in that role? In one situation you have the focus of full time professionals focused on dealing with the issue. In the other, you have each person volunteering a little bit to deal with issues. Small groups of professional bureaucrats versus each person in society having a personal stake and understanding of some of the issues, which is the better road?


Mark Griffin

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:33 pm UTC (link)
If Brian's a closet politician and Josh a systems thinker, then I'm an armchair philosopher with a Hobbesian twitch. But I digress...

Consider the following: After 8 of the most partisan years of American politics since Watergate, including one impeachment, a horrible election in 2000, four years of internecine backstabbing, and an election which, despite the best intentions of campaign finance laws, was the most expensive, most rancorous election in recent memory, what is the aftermath? Generally speaking, nothing. No rioting, no armies marching in the streets, no lawsuits (thank God). We watch every year as countries with even more at stake than we had in this election go down in flames with this kind of aftermath. Ask Burma what it's like. But here, despite what is certain to be a difficult and argumentative four years ahead, we have relative calm and order. This is not a small thing. Whether you are pleased with Tuesday's outcome, indifferent, or researching workers visas in Canada, at the very least this should give us confidence that the system is not entirely broken.

The larger theme of the election, though, comes down to the 'Two Americas' phrase coined by John Edwards. He was right in words but not in substance. The division comes down to a fundementally different conception of freedom as birthright. On the one side, the Democrats practice a sort of nihilistic 'I'm ok, you're ok, we're all ok' kind of freedom that encompasses just about anyone (except, of course, those who disagree with them). On the other, the Republicans of late (and I would please distinguish between our current strain of Republican and the historic one; they are completely different parties) follow a much more narrowly conceived notion of freedom that is primarily (a) freedom as security and (b) freedom as constrained by larger questions of faith and values; it could be said that they are trying to restore, via legislation, what was previously maintained by civil society in a relatively homogeneous nation.

Neither of these definitions are particularly redeeming, and both fail to address how freedom contributes to the ultimate liberty, freedom of thought. The parties are equally condemning of those who don't agree with them, and equally unable, or unwilling, to concede any validity to each other's point of view.

Thus, at its highest level, civil society has broken down. It's a perfect manifestation of Tocqueville's Tyranny of the Majority, wherein the victorious majority seeks not to govern, but to impose on the minority their system of thought and politics. Both parties are equally guilty of it. Thus the legislative process becomes a spoils system and the judciary becomes the ultimate place to impose, being the least representative, and most aristocratic, of the three branches.

So as someone who voted for Bush in 2000, and Kerry this time around, I would say this: if we are really serious about changing politics for the better, it matters not who we elect. Unless we can transcend the current oscillations between different majorities and their presently tyrannical natures, this will continue. Perhaps next time those who find Bush and his particular flavor of politics putrile will find themselves the victor; but someone else, as much a citizen of this country as they are, will look at that day's political landscape much as those depressed at Tuesday's results now do.

Such a house, so continually divided against itself, cannot long stand.

With best regards from the world's largest democracy, looking from afar at the world's oldest democracy.

Mark

[Mark H]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:40 pm UTC (link)
Wow, those are the best arm-chair words I've come across yet! Thanks for responding. I, too, love numbers and the complexities they throw in my otherwise collective face. But I'd like to address this idea of a system "broken."

My take: The system is thriving. It's doing what it was designed to do - ensure that those who "should" be elected, are elected. Mark threw out some great stats (I too am a stats whore), that make this election rather quirky. But if we look at voting, elections, and our representative system in a historical perspective, in terms of a legacy, the original intent of our system was to elect landed, moneyed, white men. Lets take a look at our elected officials. Who are they? Do they accurately reflect and represent the American population? Is it coincidence that women and Native Americans only won the right to vote in the 1920's?

Now I too wonder at how Catholics, Latinos, Women, and a larger percentage of African Americans vote for a party who doesn't seem to address the realities of those populations. But it isn't just phenomena. Disempowered people replicate and nurture the behaviors of those that are empowered. I hate to get grim, but why do women (and in some cases men) not only condone an abusive parent/partner, but protect and become them in some instances? Why did slaves regulate themselves? Why do immigrants and recent citizens who were once themselves either illegal or generally disenfranchised turn on others trying to get into this country? Why do some who grew up poor or otherwise not-privileged become opponents to the liberal/inclusive institutions that got them into the higher circles of power and try to dismantle programs that create inroads and access to privilege? Why do an overwhelming number of gay men act straight? Well, simply, it's because they know who has power, they know what these people with power want, and they know if they want power too, they'd better act a whole lot like them. And republicans this time around did a great job in getting people to think, "I may be black, but I am also Christian," "I may be women, but I love my white husband," and "I may be poor and carry the tax burden, but I'm in danger of getting killed in an office building I'll never step foot into but to clean." Assimilation says what. Might I remind everyone that this country has a legacy of abusing our social dissidents (women's sufferage (spell?), civil rights, native rights, gay rights, WTO, the patriot act, etc...) This country does not deal well the multiple voices. Is it any wonder why no one is protesting?

Now I know this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of explaining voter trends, but I hope it fleshes out the polemic of holding steadfast to a political system that is designed to be exclusive when our society is increasingly pluralistic.

Josh

Ps. And if you'd like to read more about systemic voter disenfranchisement, take a gander at this study:

I thought I was OK by today. I kinda almost believed that this is a good thing, that the conservatives will fuck up everything so bad that no one will ever vote Republican again.

Then I read this article. http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/electoral_reform/residual
_ballot.php
....

Sad is not the word I'm feeling anymore. It's rage.

If a Republican goes up to you and tells you in your face that your vote and voice counts, just slap them and spit in their face. It's all fucking lies.

-Kathy

[Joshua H]

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:36 pm UTC (link)
I certainly don't know all of you either, but I thought I would chime in:

One of my major problems with how the discussion about Tuesday is shaping up is that everyone seems to be claiming that it was those who were worried about "moral issues" who turned out and voted for the president. My problem is that no one has, in turn, defined what these "moral issues" are. I think we can all guess that they're talking about abortion and taking away the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, but that has yet to be specifically defined (at least as far as I've heard). Are they implying that the rest of us are immoral people? Or are our moral issues just something that wasn't heard in this election? I think of myself as a moral person, and yet I think that it is unjust to deny a woman the legal right to an abortion, and to deny my gay and lesbian friends the right to marry legally. On the other hand, I consider the war in Iraq an *extremely* moral issue. I'm also appalled that the right wing seems to have painted! John Kerry as the immoral candidate (especially when compared to the alternative).

Just my two cents for now, although I'm sure as soon as I click 'send' I'll think of more ways to respond...

Laura

[Laura H]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:37 pm UTC (link)
Laura,

How do you consider Bush and his views? Bush is definitively against gay marriage and would ban abortion (except to save the life of the woman) if possible. Considering that he is diametrically opposed to the three issues you stated (including the war in Iraq), do you consider Bush to be a moral person?

[Mark G]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:39 pm UTC (link)
Hi Mark -
I guess my point is more that the fact that different people consider different things moral should be taken into consideration before making blanket statements like "moral people turned out to vote for the president." As usual, I can see two different sides to the issue of the president's morality. On the one hand, I think that because he has deeply-held opinions about things like abortion, and because it is an extremely contentious issue, that makes him a moral person. I happen to not agree with him. Does that make me immoral? On the other hand, I feel very strongly that a preemptive war with misstated or untrue objectives (again, depending on your point of view) that has killed hundreds of thousands of people is immoral. So based on his actions, I would say no. I think we tread a very slippery slope when we try to define someone's morality - as I don't want anyone to define me as an immoral person because I didn't vote f! or the president, I have a hard time condemning anyone else to that same definition. I don't, however, have a problem stating that I think someone's *actions* are immoral.

Laura

[Laura H]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:42 pm UTC (link)
Laura,

Good job fleshing out your thoughts. I do have a follow-up question, how do you personally arrive at the conclusion whether or not an act is moral? What forms the foundation of your morals? To put it another way, how would you explain to a little green alien what morality is to you and the role it should play in our society?

This is actually an open question to all, as I am curious to see how close different people's definitions come to each other.

I think before we can determine why morality was so often cited as a reason to vote for a particular person or party, I think we have to understand what is encompassed by that word.

[Mark G]

(Reply to this) (Parent)
A Swedish Social Democrat's retrospective
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:29 pm UTC (link)
As I was thinking of writing a reply to comment on your analysis/rant, a documentary started on SVT1. In this case a documentary produced for Utbildningsradion (translation: Education radio), a branch of our public service TV. It was about a Christmas speech Olof Palme, the Prime Minister at the time, delivered in 1972. He called the bombings of Hanoi an 'evil deed' and compared them to other evil deeds in past wars. Places where violence won.

Why am I telling you about that, you might ask? I just want to underscore that of course I look for moral stature in the political leaders I vote for. Let me try some nuance (I do nuance). What amazes me is the focus on small inconsequential issues like gay marriage, when there are so much bigger moral issues at stake. People are dying in Iraq, some 40 million Americans lack health care coverage, first class education is not for everyone. The list goes on. These are all heartfelt moral issues for me, and they guide me in my choices at election time. In short, much of the same issues you mention. But ultimately, I vote for a party and its platform, because that is where the values are persisted (I think Josh Marshall of talkingpointsmemo.com made a similar point yesterday). Of course, a politician who doesn't believe in the party's platform will be lousy communicating it, but still, the issues and the ideas are more important than the person. (which would be painfully obvious if you saw some of the political leaders we've had...)

I would also like to comment on religion and politics. While I certainly acknowledge that Christianity is a powerful force in the USA, and in the world, that could be turned to a lot of good use, I am still reluctant to mix religion and politics. I think my main objection is that there is no way to disagree with faith. I am afraid that even morality is something that can be, and perhaps have to be, negociated. We have to be able to agree on basic human rights and rules of conduct, over religious boundaries, if we want to make this world a better place. That task belongs to the political realm, and I am afraid that it will mean that religious people must be prepared to make some concessions. But I am not sure. I like The West Wing too.

[I didn't know if I should send this reply to all recipients of your email but finally decided to write to you and let you decide if you want to forward it. For the people that do not know me if you decide to forward the mesage: I beg your forgiveness if you feel that I butt in on your internal business. I suppose that is exactly what I'm doing... I am every bit as proud of Sweden as you probably are of America, and could perhaps be offended if the situation was reversed. It is not my intent. My interest in US politics is partly because it affects the rest of the world in such a profound way, but I have also come to realise that I gain understanding of Swedish and European politics as well. The polarised and usually professionally packaged messages of US politcs help highlight policy differences in our own often murkier political landcape.]

best regards,
Daniel

[Daniel J]

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: A Swedish Social Democrat's retrospective
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 07:38 pm UTC (link)
...I do feel compelled to point out a couple of things, though...

1) "Inconsequential issues like gay marriage" are not (at least to some people) just about gay marriage. They are about the deeply held core value of treating everyone equal in the eyes of the law. A vote for it or against it is a vote about what kind of society we want to live in. The specific issue of gay marriage may be small, but the values it represents are not.

2) Religion and politics can not be separated in the American political arena. When was the last time you saw a presidential campaign where one of the candidates admitted he didn't go to church every Sunday? Or didn't finish a speech with "God Bless America"? Do you really think an Atheist or even someone who didn't ever invoke faith or God could win? No--to think so is to not know the vast majority of people in this country. Religion, particularly Christianity, is engrained in our political battles--the populace has shown that it trusts a man of "deep faith" over one who doesn't openly demonstrate it. To ignore religion in American politics is to turn off a large part of the country--I think this is how many Christians have come to believe that the Democratic party ridicules them...somehow, if Dems are to be successful, they need to practice an effective message that will reach these religious people.

I know this isn't directly addressing/refuting what Daniel had to say about morality being negotiable while faith is not...but a person's morality is informed by his or her faith--whether that faith is based on organized religion or not. In this country, more often than not (at least with the voting public), that morality is rooted in organized religion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: a Democrat's retrospective
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:35 pm UTC (link)
Phew! That was a looooong one :)

I will just recite an earlier mail to one of my friends in the Heartland:

> yay...we got a new President...oh, wait a minute, it's the same
> one...*SIGH* well at least no more terms after this one....
=> Yep. Saw that. Catastrophic if you ask me. This choice of president will promote a greater isolation of the US in the global picture (or isolate the world -- whichever side of the new wall one might be on). I simply cannot understand how so many people can cast their vote towards this president.

It's a longer story but -- really -- this choice is for the worse.

That is my opinion, sorry. I am just really of tired of Bush -- but even more so, the hawks around him. They are the ones lighting the fires.

Hope all is well in the states. Hope we shall meet (soon) again!

Greetings to all.

++ Jacob

[Jacob T F, Danish in Stockholm]

(Reply to this)

RE: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:43 pm UTC (link)
My perspective if your interested:

Speaking of morality: I hope that my contribitions to scientific research in the US do not get presumed as being supportive of US culture. Personally I find the US culture (Kerry or Bush imposed) highly immoral. Yet it's the culture that allows me to do the research. Always an internal struggle for me. As it should be for all Americans (your above average personal wealth and lifestyle is built on the lack of support for the less fortunate). Unfortunately these issues are neglegent when the US starts bombing other countries for no good reason with overwhleming support from its citizens. As a result, the world news and media now officially hates the US. But I guess the US just doesn't care. I don't pretend to know what the consequence of that will be, if any. In conclusion, I think you guys need to play more international sport. Maybe then the US would be more moral and have less war.

[Glen B, Australian]

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:49 pm UTC (link)
{If this ongoing discussion is starting to irritate people, or you are just tired of listening to me, tell me to shut up and I'll go back to my curry - Mark}

{Summary: Relying on world media and the UN to judge morality is like asking thieves to judge honor. Flaws and all, the US has many times in the last 15 years done what few others could do, often at the behest of nations unwilling to do so themselves, and often where no significant national interest was at stake. If our reach exceeds our grasp, that is tragic, but not immoral. Finally, serious opposition to the Iraq war requires, ultimately, a decidedly amoral Machiavellian judgment about the wisdom of leaving Iraq under Hussein's control, and is therefore a poor metric to use in determining morality.}

Glen has thrown down an impressive guantlet, one much in fashion today. At the risk of sticking my neck out just far enough to have it cut off, I would like to take it up.

Let me begin by acknowledging the faults whereof Glen speaks. We Americans are, without a doubt, flawed human beings. We are proud, vainglorious, gluttonous. We have the attention span of gnats, sometimes care more about what goes on inside our borders than out, possess at times a rather astonishing historical and geographical ignorance, and promote a culture that often caters to the base and low, rather than the high and noble. We engage, from time to time, in foreign adventures for murky reasons and then abandon them when something new catches our eye.

We have, of late, made war on a nation for what were, at the least, disingenuous reasons. We are in the middle of a culture war that, as I said in my last missive, has led to a breakdown in civil society. We have an ongoing problem with race that, despite the best efforts of many good Americans, we remain unable to fully solve. We have an unhealthy fascination with driving industrial-strength cars with single-digit fuel efficiency to soccer practice. We are responsible for a McDonalds on the Champs-Elysees.

For these reasons and more, Glen argues that the international media (and, by implication, much of the world) looks on us with expressions ranging from distaste to outright hate that is reserved for us alone. Addressing this hate would require addressing the underlying immorality, which in turn would require greater attention and deferance to the UN, our European allies, and FIFA.

But let us consider what these bodies (aside from FIFA, where interpretation of the offsides rule is proof of the inpenetrability of international law) have done to prove their own morality:

The UN allows despotic countries with long track records in torture, unlawful imprisonment, genocide, mass murder, fraud, embezzlement, capricious sadism, and a litany of other abuses to sit in good standing and participate in an ostensibly democratic body. Libya, Syria, and Iran are prime examples. As a body, it is systematically unable to make decisions of consequence. It passes resolutions it does not enforce, signs bills which few of the signators honor, and cannot be called upon to deal with crises with any kind of dependency, and inaction in Rwanda, Bosnia, and the Sudan are the most recent black marks on the books. It's elite abused the oil-for-food program in Iraq even as they bemoaned the ill effects of sanctions.

[Mark H's comment continues below...]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:51 pm UTC (link)
France has watched from afar as her former colonies have disintegrated into genocide and chaos. Despite grave pronoucements about the need to help, it has mustered little time or treasure for the relief of that part of the world it considers most its own, Western and Sub-Saharan Africa (with the Sudan and Ivory Coast as the latest examples). Inquiries into the UN Oil-for-Food program indicate that some of its officials received bribes, kickbacks, and other incentives to either allow or enable the abuse of the oil-for-food program in Iraq, abuses that allowed the Baath party to line its own pockets while complaining to the world about the impact of economic sanctions on Iraqi citzens. And lest we forget, Vietnam began life as a French colonial war intent on maintaining French rule there.

Europe (and I speak here primarily of France and Germany as the great powers) was unable to do the one thing that its history indebts it to do: confront genocidal wars in its own backyard. Instead the Europeans watched as Sarajevo was shelled and Muslims were butchered by the hundreds of thousands. It has resisted the entry of a Muslim nation, Turkey, into the EU. It has serious problems accepting into it people from non-European backgrounds, leading to the current tensions in Germany (near-impossibility of citizenship for Kurdish guest workers) and France (inability to include Muslim immigrants in its national milleau). Unemployment runs at 10+ percent and has for years. Anti-Semitism is on the rise.

Our other international counterparts are little better. If you believe gluttony to be a sin, then China is becoming the glutton of the world as it grows itself into an international economic powerhouse; it is astoundingly undemocratic - Tienannmen Square was only 15 years ago; it sees fit every few years to lob a few missles across the Straits of Taiwan in an attempt to deny the reality that everyone sees but can't state: That Taiwan is an independent and democratic nation; and prior to becoming a international economic darling, it engaged in the brutal, murderous, near-genocidal Cultural Revolution. Russia has secret police that repulse John Ashcroft, a corrupt government, a messy war in Chechnya, ongoing degradation of basic freedoms, and deep levels of collusion between the secret police and the government in lining their pockets through state siezure of private assets. India (which I have the priviledge of watching from within), despite its recent gains and laudable democratic and human rights successes, has massive wealth disparity, a lingering caste system that denies class mobility to millions, and nuclear ambitions; from time to time risks WWIII with Pakistan; and was recently governed by a religious political party that makes the Christian Coalition look like Sunday choirboys (see the riots following government attempts to build a Hindu temple atop a sacred Muslim site, and the ensuing violent putdowns).

Thus, I remain unconvinced that the reason the world hates the United States is our immorality. To do so would require the most astounding of moral equivocation: That the misdeeds of the United States are on par with (or in fact exceed) those of nations which in the last 50 years have engaged in genocide, totalitarianism, economic privation, collusion with despotic regimes, systematic destruction of civil society, ademocratic imperialism, and neverending war. And in the arena of our democratic allies, it ignores that those allies have many of the same faults as the US, and that they routinely call on us to do what they cannot: intervene in humanitarian situations which they are either unwilling or unable to intervene in themselves.

[Mark H's comment continues below...]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:52 pm UTC (link)
Thus, the track record of the last ten years: 1991, liberation of Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion; 1991 - 2002, maintenance of the no-fly zone over Iraq, allowing the establishment of a democratic Kurdish state and the protection of the Kurds from genocide; 1992, intervention in Somalia to attempt to stop famine and war; 1994, intervention in Haiti during its civil war; 1995, intervention in Bosnia, where our presence continues to this day; 2001, removal of the Taliban, crowned recently with democratic elections. And our 50-year presence in South Korea as a bulwark against the fascist, totalitarian North Korea.

Or, if economics is more to your liking: intervention in the Mexican peso devaluation, which would have decimated the Mexican economy and led to widespread privation if it had continued; intervention in the Argentinian currency crisis; bailout of Long-Term Capital Management, whose failure would have disrupted the entire international financial system. These interventions were done for national interests, but it remains that without them the economies, and by extension the citizens, of much of the world would have suffered significant privation.

So I suppose Glen is right: I don't much care, at a theoretical level, if the world hates the US. The world hasn't proven to me that it has the moral authority to make this judgment. I do care, practically, because it impedes a good many positive things that the nations of the world might do were relations better, but those are cares of that most amoral of arts, diplomacy.

Finally, to Glen's specific statements about the war. I take issue with the 'bombing of other countries for no good reason', which I assume to be about Iraq (though if it's about the Sudanese aspirin factory we blew up in 1998, that's fair game and we should answer for that). You may argue that the war was a dumb idea, or that we've botched it pretty well, or that we went to the UN with our minds already made up, and I'll accept that. But to say that there were no good reasons for getting rid of Saddam is naieve: this was a man who conducted an 8-year war with his neighbor, gassed his own people, invaded a sovereign neighbor with little provocation, engaged in genocide, sponsored suicide bombers in Israel, and used torture as policy. If you want to make the argument that it was better to leave him there, fine, but given Hussein's track record in war, murder, genocide, and torture, that's a pretty Machiavellian argument and not particularly moral.

America could be more moral; America should be more moral. It is in her best nature, and a fulfillment of the promise of her founding, to be so. To argue that America is perfect in conduct and enternally just in action is ignorant of her faults and her history. But to engage in the kind of moral equivocation that Glen suggests is to remove all moral compass from the analysis of international relations and the conduct of states, and to degrade the possibility of having any standard against which to judge those nations that participate, fully and vigorously, in the conduct of international diplomacy and law.

[Mark H]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:54 pm UTC (link)
Very good response Mark.

You listed out a number of examples where the US has become involved in international incidents to prevent tragedies from occurring, or to stop those already in progress. Among those listed are Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia, which I presume were all considered moral. My question for the group is what makes some of those missions which result in civilian deaths morally acceptable while others are considered immoral?

The reason I ask for this clarification is that I can't seem to find a clear UN guideline stating when the UN says that there should be intervention in an incident. There are numerous examples of the UN not stepping in to a conflict. But I don't particularly recall an incident where the UN became involved in a "hot" conflict without the US taking a lead role as champion for the cause.

While the UN as an admirable concept, I wonder if there aren't fundamental flaws. The same selfishness found in the US that has been discussed at length, appears to also be present in every other nation as well. The NATO sponsored action in Bosnia and Kosovo were sponsored by European states concerned that the war could spill into their countries, as well as the large influx of refugees flooding into Western Europe. France has sent troops to a number of countries in an attempt to maintain their financial interests in different despotic countries, with the Ivory Coast and Algeria being the most notable examples.

So what is the nature of morality at the international level? Is it one based on Judeo/Christian theology? Is it one based on moral relativism? Are measures passed in the UN council the basis for international morality? Is it based on something more basic (and if so, what is that in turn based on)? It is hard to come to an agreement on whether an action is moral or immoral if everyone does not have a clear understanding of the moral guidelines by which a judgment is made.

The history of international diplomacy has always been based on national self interests, with a possible exception of several countries in the last 2-3 decades. Not only has self-interest been the norm, but it has been the expectation of all the citizens of the world. The concept of benevolent international intervention is a recent one, one that I am not convinced is shared by very many other states. It is hard to practice if there are a number of countries who are still acting solely on their self interests.

[Mark G]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:56 pm UTC (link)
note -- much of this was written over the wknd (with one addition this am)

wow, this is getting to be quite the little discussion here. i like talk...it build community and brings folks together more. i like action best though as that can result in tangible, measurable results, though it might be a long term process -- 10, 20, 30 yrs out (just think back to what the republican party did some 30 yrs ago)

in these threads, i think there are some rather interesting points and questions raised. i'll just tackle the few that resonate at the moment.

josh -- yes indeed there is a crapload of disenfranchisement. this is not new. and was also mentioned in that book by greg palast , "the best democracy money can buy." in the beginning of the book he talks of how people of color were systematically disenfranchised in the 2000 election. also, in 2004, i have heard some reports of asian americans being disenfranchised, harassed, or otherwise intimidated at the polls. here in seattle, at a particular polling place at a school on beacon hill (i think), the fire alarm was pulled several times a day, forcing all the folks out, and then the fire department had to give it the ok for folks to come back in. i try not to be a conspiracy theorist, but all of this sounds shady to me.

so what do we do? we can beat ourselves silly screaming from mountain tops to say that votes are not counted and people are disenfranchised. this could be a slipperly slope though as it could turn people off and shut them down so they never even recognize there are issues, and it's not addressed. there are many in this country that seem to believe we no longer need to worry about issues facing those who are disenfranchised at the polls -- that this was something already addressed in the 20s, or 60s. with the role that homophobia appears to have played in the election, (and sry to be blunt) it would also not surprise me one bit if racism and bigotry factor into the *lack* of the attention given to ongoing voter disenfrancisement.

so i think the "how" of how voter disenfranchisement is addressed is important. one way would be to address it on moral terms -- kinda like what they did in the 1960s. this way you reach people on a completely different level than you would if you talk of something intellecutally. i am sure there are other methods, but i don't know what they are offhand.

as for the notion of voting for those who hurt you...i never thought of it that way before. while i can see the argument in the examples cited, in the case of voting i think there are different factors at play.

look back at the rhetoric. people are saying that those in red states are voting against their interests. isn't that just a tad bit patronizing for an outsider to say "vote for me because i have your interests in mind?" in many ways it seems to say, "you suck, your life sucks, and you're too dumb to realize it." i don't see how that is very appealing to many voters regardless of their leanings. instead, many have argued, and i tend to agree, that people vote their values, hopes, dreams and fears. the facts, regardless of what they are, seem to be secondary to all the items listed above. this is in no way a means of saying ppl are dumb if they ignore the facts, but rather, if the facts go against your core beliefs, your basic values...that's not something that is taken lightly or easily. i can see how it would be tempting to say the facts are wrong, or it's spin, or it's whatever...rather than completely re-evaluating all of your core values and the like. there's a book that seems to address this (though i hate the title ) called, "What's the Matter with Kansas?")

[Brian H's comment continues below...]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "I don't belong to any organized party..."
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:57 pm UTC (link)
looping back to mark g's ? on the defintion of morals (i would also add values and vision as those seem different to me), i would say that is one of the challenges facing the current democratic party. what the heck do they stand for anyway? i think they have them, but it's not clearly articulated. in several recent conversations, they have plenty of plans and policies, but to what end? what's at the core? what are the values that tie them all together? some may say social justice and civil rights are at the core of the dems (more historical rather than current) but what of new ones? i don't know if i can accurately say what the values, morals, etc of the party is...but i can about mine, and that's what i tried to do in my original email. whether or not i accurately conveyed them is a different story -- lol. in many ways i think the dem party is broken. this would seem a good oportunity to help reshape it, or at least to have an extreme makeover or something -- hehe. we could identify the values, morals and visions and set the agenda. this would seem to involve a lot of what we discussed -- the role of values, morals, vision, philosophy, etc.

in terms of some action, what of changing the whole process by which this country votes (beyond the help america vote act)? for starters, i'm not really sure if it's good to have voting be a states right issue (controlled by the secretary of the state rather than a federal office). that would seem to put too many opportunities for corruption by getting buddy buddy with the secretary of state. could this not be something that is facillitated by the federal government? or at the very least, a non -partisan panel at the state level to manage the elections? also, why the heck is it that the average age of a poll worker is 70+? no offense to them, but in my opinion it's good to have a variety of folks working the polls to keep it fresh and to prevent people from getting lazy thinking they know how to do something when the laws themselves might have changed. there's also the electoral college, but that is a diff issue entirely.

lastly, marh h/mark g...great pts on morality, however, to take that argument of discounting world opinion further because they are not of the same moral playing field seems dangerous. who then has the moral justfication to critique the US, or any other country for that matter? regardless of the source, to make this a *better* place (for we are far from a perfect nation) i think that criticisms need to be taken seriously into account. to not look critically at ourselves does a great disservice to all those in this great country at home, and those abroad who are out there fighting this war.

i've talked enough for now and have a ton of work today. what are others thinking? or am i just being routed to your recycle bin? ;-)

best, bh

[Brian H]

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Reply to Mark
(Anonymous)
2004-11-09 05:04 pm UTC (link)
Of course Mark I would never expect a reply met with anything but utter patriotism for the US. Firstly I meant more about the issues within the US having great divides between the rich and poor. But anyway, in reply to your very detailed accounts, your attacks on Europe I don't think are justified at all. Nato initiated nearly everything in that case with the primary support of the US...this is totally different to what you say. And most other things that the US has done have been largely for its own interests (and the interests of the country it helped) and were overwhelmingly backed by the UN. Iraq is one of the first instances where no notable contributions (which were primarily bribed) except for Britain agreed to the invasion of Iraq. The way in which it was adressed the underlying circumstances and its conception and initiation is totally and utterly immoral and connot be justified by saying Saddam was a bad man. I agree with all the other things you say about morality. But again, there is not a single excuse for the differences in rich and poor in the US and this should be addressed and is what I struggle with living in the US. Brian your comments hit the nail on the head. People care more about their values rather than anything else (money and lifestyle). It is up to noble leaders to support them in any other way, which they do not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Recount
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 05:44 pm UTC (link)
Okay, I am not the smartest of the group nor am I the most articulate of the group. I can say, however, that I am quite disturbed at the direction that our nation is taking. We are imposing our will on other nations as well as having our nation impose its will upon us. I am tired of making jokes and hiding ourselves, hoping that things will get better. I fear that our party will start making concessions instead of convincing. Like Joel said, because we are progressive, does not mean that our morals are incorrect. Our nation was founded on the fact that all people were created equal and it is time that we begin to step up. The line has been drawn and we all must make a stand.

Please, you are all intelligent people and the time has come that we begin to work on steering the U.S. Hell, even without your help, I was a write in for the President because of our beliefs. Please, all of you are wise and deserve a place in shaping our country. We have two years or four years before the next election, either way plenty of time to mobilize. The time has come to make a stand, please don't make me stand alone.

[Tom O]

(Reply to this)

Re: a Democrat's retrospective
(Anonymous)
2004-11-08 07:37 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for the perspective--I was listening to NPR shortly after Kerry's concession speech yesterday and they had a very interesting guest on who was making some of the same points you are. I wish I could remember his name, but essentially he was saying that the Democratic party needed to link their values in a coherent way to their politics--that there is a clear connection to be made and it is not being articulated. He also said that many Christians feel ridiculed by Democrats, which is understandable--a lot of liberals do ridicule the religious. Another interesting point he made was that liberal Christians in the US outnumber conservative Christians. The difference we see in voting is due to the fact that the GOP has been very successful in organizing conservative Christians into a strong voting block and the Dems haven't done the same with liberal Christians. There is definitely a point to be made that the Dems need to reach out to these people--after all I think liberal Christians and the Dems share a lot of core values. Lastly (at least of what I heard), he made the point that the Dems have become more of a regional party rather than a national one. Dems need to find a way to make their case to a much wider audience, geographically speaking. I think
you've hit the nail on the head in thinking that core values are a way to do this.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: a Democrat's retrospective
(Anonymous)
2004-11-09 07:07 pm UTC (link)
By Bill

Sorry about the interruption, I know Joel and just wandered in here, so I'll put in my $.03 (Inflation you know).

I want to say that this war is an immoral waste of resources. I'm not talking about the billions of dollars that will be spent to fund this stupid thing, I'm talking about the enormous waste of political will, both here and abroad.

But how can getting rid of Saddam be a waste, say the critics? He was a BAD MAN with a BAD MUSTACHE! Of course Saddam was a terrible human being and an evil ruler and wanted to destroy the US and wanted WMD's (who doesn't?) and was a terrible father who raised two even more vicious sons. Even in the Arab world he would have never won a popularity contest. Of course it is better that he's not in power. Of course elections in Iraq are a good thing. Most importantly, of course I want a President that is willing to make unpopular decisions to make a moral stand and to make our country safe. Does that about cover it?

The problem with the argument is that we have to work in a finite system (however much deficit spending we do), and there are always trade-offs when you decide to do something as serious and resource expensive as war.

What kind of resources? On Sept 12, 2001, America had possibly the greatest period of unification that the country has ever seen. Political enemies came together to grieve, to console, and to rage. We had the world on our side. Condolences and outrage poured into the country from every corner of the globe. America, and the President, had the opportunity to use that enormous pool of unity for creative, unifying, and lasting good.

And we fucked it up.

It took all of the political and social will of the President to go to war with Iraq despite world and domestic opposition. It used up our political resources to explain on a global stage why we were doing it. It took all of my personal resources not to crawl into a hole from outrage. But we managed it. We are now in a country that does not want us there with a world that looks to us not with respect, but with fear.

But that's the liberal media talking. What about all of those wonderful stories about all the great things that the troops are doing for the Iraqi people?

It seems obvious to me that the gains in goodwill that we are gaining with the locals in Iraq are due to great personal heroism, physical and political on a one-on-one basis by our troops on the ground. The good that our troops do seems to be in spite of their commander and not because of him, but I digress. Back to resources.

It is the greatest of all immorality that the same people that scream (yes scream) at me for saying that the US could figure out a way to provide healthcare for all its citizens are the same people that say it is well within the realm of possibility to turn Iraq into a democratic state, friendly to the US in a couple of years with only some minor problems. If it is right and moral to accomplish one impossible nation-building task, why not try some nation-building at home?

If a good cause makes all that killing worthwhile, why can't we turn that will to domestic issues, like finding a solution to the gay marriage problem, healthcare problem, race problem. If we as a country have the political will to sacrifice thousands of lives to let Iraq live free, where is that same will to educate our children?

Abroad, we had the opportunity to reach out to the Middle East (whose people, for the most part, were horrified at Sept 11) and open the first real talks between the Arab world and the West. We could have worked on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. We did none of these things, and that is where the true immorality of the war lies.

What happens when the death toll to American soldiers in Iraq outstrips the number of deaths on September 11? We will keep going and going and going. With that kind of political will, nothing is out of reach. Unfortunately, we don't have the political imagination to do something useful with all of that determination.

I feel betrayed by my country and saddened that the person mainly responsible got reelected. It is said that people get the kind of government they deserve. I had hoped that we deserved better.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Serious?
(Anonymous)
2004-11-09 06:46 pm UTC (link)
I've been thinking that maybe it's time to be serious and really do something. I am truely appalled that there is now a group of people in this country that can use the words "moral values" as a code word to identify themselves to other people and get away with it. Especially since those people are idiots at best and assholes at worst.

I didn't think that it was in question that our values are better. They always have been. Haven't the Republicans always said, "What you say would be great in a perfect world, but be realistic." Now they say that the perfect world is possible and how dare the Democrats be "negative?"

How dare they take the moral high ground now? Stupidity, pig-headedness, and the inability to play in a group get people to fail kindergarden, but now they are qualifications for president? Give me a break.

I'm serious. Let's start that revolution. Who wants to run?

Bilvis

(Reply to this)

(24 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…