As a follow-up to yesterday's post, in which I wondered why Bill Moyers was granting an interview to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, I add these thoughts:
I watched the interview and believe Moyers was not using it to help or hurt Obama, but to help a fellow minister who had been slandered unfairly.
I also believe Moyers' interview was in keeping with what he always does - attempt to educate people and help them see the world in all of its complexity, rather than just in sound bites.
Moyers has helped viewers see the complexity of the Iraq War, of terrorism, of poverty in America and around the world, of religion as well as atheism, of evolutionary theory and Biblical creationism, of global warming, etc.
Moyers, you see, is a different kind of Christian from many of the loud mouth "christians" who are constantly spewing their black and white "beliefs" on television.
He is unlike the many "born again" christians who never get very far past the birth stage, and who remain moral infants for their entire lives. He wants people to grow up.
What I saw on Moyers' show last night was a preacher who is definitely not a moral infant, and who insists the members of his congregation not be moral infants. If he wanted them to remain infants, he would confine himself to preaching syrupy sermons about how much God loved them or angry sermons about how much God hates gays and women who have abortions.
Instead, Jeremiah Wright challenged his parishoners, both before and after 9/11, to realize that even though a grievous wrong had been done to this country, the leaders of this country have also done grievous wrongs. What he said cannot be denied by any sentient being, no matter how much they might want to deny it.
What America did to the Native Americans and the Africans they brought to be slaves is unconscionable. And with the many wars it has engaged in, America does have blood on its hands. How can anyone deny that? They can't, unless they remain moral infants.
Moral infants don't want to see reality. They can't accept the fact that they might ever have done anything wrong. Have you ever seen a two year old accept responsibility for being "bad?" No, they try to blame someone else, and if mom punishes them, they get angry at her.
The role of the Christian religion is not just to count how many souls have been "born again," but to help those souls grow up and see their own role in the evils of the world so that they can reform and renew humanity.
9/11 was a terrible evil perpetrated on this country, but it wasn't perpetrated simply because Osama bin Laden was jealous that Americans own fancy cars and wear designer clothes. Osama bin Laden may or may not be crazy, but he made his cause very clear. He was tired of America's meddling in the Middle East, in his homeland, in which he believed they had no business.
Whether or not you believe America has a right to be in the Middle East, or had a right to incinerate hundreds of thousands of Japanese with two atomic bombs, or enslave hundreds of thousands of Africans, or slaughter hundreds of thousands of Native Americans, the fact is that these things are realities and many people in the world condemn us for them, even if we have a blind spot that does not allow us to condemn ourselves.
The job of a preacher, or a prophet, is to hold a mirror up to ourselves and help us see how we are not living according to the laws of God. Jeremiah Wright did that. He wasn't just interested in comforting his people who have been victimized by the ongoing racism of the country, and whose ancestors had been slaves, but to help them see what they must do to change America and help create a nation that rejects violence and discrimination.
Yes, some of Jeremiah Wright's words were unfortunate. But as he said, he was doing what preachers do. In some instances he may have gotten carried away. He wasn't timid. But he wasn't wrong.
It's hard to grow up, as a human being and as a person of faith. Judging by the hysterical reaction to Jeremiah Wright's words, not enough people in this country have done it.
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
On flags and flag pins
They did it again. They questioned Barack Obama's patriotism at the debate on Tuesday because he, like most of his fellow Democrats including Hillary Clinton, does not wear a lapel pin of the American flag.
From time to time, a flap arises over the flag and political people try to use it to confirm someone's patriotism or lack of it. Occasionally, some deranged Senator or Congressperson decides we need to draft another anti-flag burning amendment, which of course, never goes anywhere because the American people are smart enough to realize the insignificance of this issue. Rush Limbaugh used to routinely accuse the Democrats of elevating symbols over substance, but when it comes to the flag, no one can manipulate symbols like Republicans.
From the President on down, nearly every male leader on the Republican side has worn a flag lapel pin ever since 9/11. Some television anchors wore them for a while, and a few still do, though most have taken them off.
After 9/11, as everyone remembers, flags appeared everywhere. I had gone to my daugher's house that day to help with her new baby, and when I arrived home I saw that my entire street was lined with flags. My home was the only one without one as I had been gone when the neighbors united in this act of solidarity, so I quickly put my own small flag (planted on my lawn the previous Fourth of July by a realtor who used it as an advertising gimic). The flags stayed there for weeks, but finally as mine became worn and weathered, I took it down. A few weeks later many of my neighbors did the same.
The initial trauma of 9/11 had passed and the hopelessness we all felt, which led to our doing the only thing we could – wave the flag – was waning, and it seemed time. But since I was the first, perhaps some of my neighbors thought me unpatriotic.
I also followed the lead of many women in my town, and made my own flag pins out of safety pins and small red, white and blue beads. They were actually quite interesting, and fun to make and I wore one for several weeks, although I often forgot to remove the pin from the previous day's clothing to put it on that day's outfit. (I suppose George W. Bush doesn't have to worry about removing a flag pin from yesterday's suit as he probably has more pins than suits and keeps one on the lapel of each jacket.)
Eventually, I stopped wearing the home made flag pins as well, no longer feeling the need to remind myself of the symbolism of the post 9/11 flags. To me, they meant that I felt a solidarity with my fellow citizens, that I mourned the loss of those who died on 9/11, and that I was united with the President and the leaders of our country in finding a way to prevent another attack. I haven't stopped feeling that solidarity, but I no longer feel in sync with the president or the leaders of the country. Their way to defend the country, and what I consider the right way to defend the country, couldn't be more at odds.
At some point, the flag no longer represented the solidarity we as a nation felt after 9/11. At some point, probably when the nation became divided in their opinions over the Iraq War, the lapel pin became a weapon used by the Republicans to tarnish as unpatriotic all those who no longer wore it.
And now it is being used in this presidential election season. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton wear a lapel pin, and I don't think McCain always wears one either. But only Barack Obama is being singled out for not wearing one. Is this a racist thing, or sexist, or what?
Do we only expect men to wear flag pins? Is it only used against Democrats? And how long will American politicians - especially Republicans - continue to wear them? On John McCain's website there is a video, and many pictures, in which he does not wear a flag pin. Do we absolve him of this requirement because of his "war hero" status?
If being a war hero means you are automatically considered a patriot, no matter what you do afterwards, then we must also consider Jeremiah Wright, who volunteered to join the Marines during the Vietnam War, a war hero.
The flag is a mere symbol. And the wearing of a flag pin, most probably manufactured in a sweat shop in China, is not the way to determine one's patriotism. Just as I and my neighbors took our flags down a few months after 9/11, so Barack Obama and many other politicians stopped wearing a flag pin after a period of time. When a symbol no longer is serving the function that it once did, it is time to discontinue using it as a symbol. John McCain does not feel the need to continue wearing a pin. Neither does Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton. Wearing a flag pin does not make you a patriot.
What makes you a patriot is believing in and promoting the values and ideals the flag stands for: freedom, liberty, justice, and equality.
From time to time, a flap arises over the flag and political people try to use it to confirm someone's patriotism or lack of it. Occasionally, some deranged Senator or Congressperson decides we need to draft another anti-flag burning amendment, which of course, never goes anywhere because the American people are smart enough to realize the insignificance of this issue. Rush Limbaugh used to routinely accuse the Democrats of elevating symbols over substance, but when it comes to the flag, no one can manipulate symbols like Republicans.
From the President on down, nearly every male leader on the Republican side has worn a flag lapel pin ever since 9/11. Some television anchors wore them for a while, and a few still do, though most have taken them off.
After 9/11, as everyone remembers, flags appeared everywhere. I had gone to my daugher's house that day to help with her new baby, and when I arrived home I saw that my entire street was lined with flags. My home was the only one without one as I had been gone when the neighbors united in this act of solidarity, so I quickly put my own small flag (planted on my lawn the previous Fourth of July by a realtor who used it as an advertising gimic). The flags stayed there for weeks, but finally as mine became worn and weathered, I took it down. A few weeks later many of my neighbors did the same.
The initial trauma of 9/11 had passed and the hopelessness we all felt, which led to our doing the only thing we could – wave the flag – was waning, and it seemed time. But since I was the first, perhaps some of my neighbors thought me unpatriotic.
I also followed the lead of many women in my town, and made my own flag pins out of safety pins and small red, white and blue beads. They were actually quite interesting, and fun to make and I wore one for several weeks, although I often forgot to remove the pin from the previous day's clothing to put it on that day's outfit. (I suppose George W. Bush doesn't have to worry about removing a flag pin from yesterday's suit as he probably has more pins than suits and keeps one on the lapel of each jacket.)
Eventually, I stopped wearing the home made flag pins as well, no longer feeling the need to remind myself of the symbolism of the post 9/11 flags. To me, they meant that I felt a solidarity with my fellow citizens, that I mourned the loss of those who died on 9/11, and that I was united with the President and the leaders of our country in finding a way to prevent another attack. I haven't stopped feeling that solidarity, but I no longer feel in sync with the president or the leaders of the country. Their way to defend the country, and what I consider the right way to defend the country, couldn't be more at odds.
At some point, the flag no longer represented the solidarity we as a nation felt after 9/11. At some point, probably when the nation became divided in their opinions over the Iraq War, the lapel pin became a weapon used by the Republicans to tarnish as unpatriotic all those who no longer wore it.
And now it is being used in this presidential election season. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton wear a lapel pin, and I don't think McCain always wears one either. But only Barack Obama is being singled out for not wearing one. Is this a racist thing, or sexist, or what?
Do we only expect men to wear flag pins? Is it only used against Democrats? And how long will American politicians - especially Republicans - continue to wear them? On John McCain's website there is a video, and many pictures, in which he does not wear a flag pin. Do we absolve him of this requirement because of his "war hero" status?
If being a war hero means you are automatically considered a patriot, no matter what you do afterwards, then we must also consider Jeremiah Wright, who volunteered to join the Marines during the Vietnam War, a war hero.
The flag is a mere symbol. And the wearing of a flag pin, most probably manufactured in a sweat shop in China, is not the way to determine one's patriotism. Just as I and my neighbors took our flags down a few months after 9/11, so Barack Obama and many other politicians stopped wearing a flag pin after a period of time. When a symbol no longer is serving the function that it once did, it is time to discontinue using it as a symbol. John McCain does not feel the need to continue wearing a pin. Neither does Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton. Wearing a flag pin does not make you a patriot.
What makes you a patriot is believing in and promoting the values and ideals the flag stands for: freedom, liberty, justice, and equality.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The angry sermons of Jeremiah Wright
Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has been condemned for giving fiery, angry sermons that criticized and even condemned America for its treatment of African Americans as well as its foreign policies that led to some fanatics attacking us on 9/11. Obama himself is being attacked for not having distanced himself from the church and condemned Wright earlier.
One thing I think a lot of people are missing is that Wright's angry sermon after 9/11 was given when a lot of people were angry. He was not a politician, not speaking to a national audience. He was talking to his African American flock that had known terrorism of one variety or another for generations. He was speaking in a language few if any white churches are familiar with and he was coming from an attempt to understand 9/11, and to put it into a context his congregation could understand.
It has been a long time since the Emancipation Proclomation, and a lot of whites think slavery and discrimination ended then, but any African American can tell you they still face discrimination. The recent subprime meltdown, for example, is a testimonial to the fact that far more blacks were targeted for unfair loans than whites. And the candidacy of Obama has brought racism to the fore, even from his opponent on the Democratic side. Angry sermons in African American churches should therefore not surprise or horrify us.
It has also been a long time since 9/11 and a lot of us have forgotten how angry many of us were, and how we were searching to understand what had happened and why. Some of us (like Bush) put all the blame on Islam and a handful of militants. Other of us, including me, saw a bigger picture in failings of our government and foreign policies that caused "blowback." This is what Rev. Wright was saying in that sermon after 9/11.
I went back into my own writings from that time and found an article I wrote shortly after 9/11. I include it here. It is full of anger.
********************************************************************************
First shock, then horror, then grief. Finally anger. I’m angry!
Naturally, most of my anger is directed towards the terrorists who, in their fanaticism and ignorance, their inhumanity and evil, killed thousands of Americans and visitors from other countries, and destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of others. I’m angry because they robbed countless children of their parents, parents of their children, husbands of their wives and wives of their husbands. They took away aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends, fiances, boyfriends and girlfriends.
I’m angry because these foreign invaders robbed us all of our security. How can we ever again trust - as we once did - in the safety of our airplanes, the stability of our high rise buildings, the purity of our water and air, the hearts, minds and intentions of some of those walking freely among us, using the civil liberties we so generously extend to them to hurt us? Oh, we will say in a burst of patriotism that we can’t let the terrorists win by being afraid, but those are words. We are afraid!
I’m outraged at a fanatical wealthy Muslim whose name invades every newspaper, magazine and television news broadcast - Osama bin Ladin, the man now hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. I loathe his protestations of Islamic piety which contradict everything true faith in God teaches, and the Taliban who harbor him and match him in their cruel, indiscriminate violence against their own people, especially their women.
But I’m not just angry at the terrorists. The value of justifiable anger is that it forces one to think and urges one to action. My anger calls on me to look, not only at others but also at myself, not only at other nations and religions, but also at my own. And so my anger is directed far beyond the 19 hijackers and the cells of Islamic fundamentalists all around the world who even today continue to conspire against the United States, Israel, and western culture. I am also angry at those closer to home.
I’m angry at the intelligence agencies for failing us. Perhaps that’s unfair, but it now appears that the CIA, FBI and other agencies whom we count on to keep us protected, knew for a long time about the dangers of terrorism and still did not prevent this horror. I’m angry at budget cuts and regulations which prevented these agencies from doing their jobs as well as they could have.
I’m angry at our political leaders who focused so much on protecting our borders against drug dealers and illegal immigrants that they allowed madmen from the middle east to enter our country and stay for years to plan their evil deeds. Why did we have a very visible “war on drugs” long before we focused on terrorism?
I’m angry at Republicans for spewing so much hate against President Clinton, and spending so much valuable time examining his sex life, that they neglected the work of intelligence and counter terrorism and at the same time gave our enemies reason to believe we were a frivolous people, an easy target.
I’m angry at Democrats and Republicans for prolonging the recent presidential election and leaving our country in limbo for so many months. In the wake of the deaths of over three thousand people, I’m angry at our pettiness.
I’m angry at years of short sighted foreign policy - both Republican and Democrat - that has given power and arms to our current enemies and cost the lives of so many military and civilians, all in an effort to promote our current interests. Didn’t we help Saddam Hussein in his fight against Iran and didn’t that only give him the ammunition he needed to fight us a few years later? Didn’t we support the Taliban against the Soviet Union? When will we learn?
I’m angry at the owners of a few flight schools who were more interested in making money teaching Arab men to fly “but not take off and land,” than in notifying authorities of such suspicious requests. Again, it’s probably an unfair accusation, but anger is there nonetheless.
I’m angry at the media for becoming more a purveyor of entertainment than an essential source of needed information. While the plot to destroy America was being hatched, surely the biggest story of the past fifty years, the media were busy playing Sherlock Holmes in the case of Gary Condit and the missing intern. Where were the brilliant investigative journalists when we really needed them? Now the media is fully engaged, each television network obsessed with the story of September 11 and America’s plans to respond, some giving music and a title to their coverage, as if the events of the past weeks are a mini-series. What rationale, I ask, is behind CNN calling their coverage America’s “New War” as if current events have to do with fashion or the promotion of a new product?
I am angry at the complacency and blindness of the masses of American people, including myself, who care more about their latest trip to McDonald’s or the prestige of the university - or even preschool - they wish their children to attend than they do about their fellow human beings on the other side of the world who have neither food nor water, let alone any education. In fact, it is both poverty and ignorance that allows a few mad leaders to build hatred among their uneducated followers, hatred that targets an entire culture.
I’m angry at everyone in this country - from the politicians to the car manufacturers - who refused to develop alternate sources of energy so that we could stop our dependency on corrupt dictatorships in the middle east for oil to feed our gas guzzling SUVs.
I’m angry at all the good Muslims who did not speak against those who have hijacked their religion for their own purposes. They complain now that they are being discriminated against, but they shouldn’t really be surprised. If in months and years past they had loudly and passionately condemned those who plot murder and destruction while professing to be devout Muslims, Americans could make a distinction. But they remained silent while they allowed radical murderers to define their religion, worship in their mosques and collect money from them to commit murder.
I’m angry at all religious fundamentalists, not just the Islamic variety. From the crusades and inquisition, undertakings performed in the name of Christ, to the militant leaders of the pro-life movement who inspire men to kill doctors, religious fundamentalists bring violence and hate to the world. Is the killing of a doctor by a “Christian” any less a violation of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” than the act of a suicide bomber? Genuine holy people do not murder human beings, nor say, as did Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson, that a people deserve to be murdered. Those who kill in the name of God, Yahweh or Allah are anything but holy. They may be fervent, passionate believers in something, but it is related neither to God nor to holiness.
My anger, however, does not dim my love for my country. Americans may sometimes be frivolous and arrogant, but we can be a great people. We look at all sides of an issue; we tolerate multiple viewpoints; we have freedom of speech and religion; we care for our elderly and our sick. Large numbers of our citizens provide health care and food to our poor as well as the poor all around the world where we are welcome. We rescue those in danger, even giving our lives to save others, and we give generously to victims of disasters. No one who is paying attention to the stories of the past three weeks can deny that America is a nation of heroes who would sacrifice their lives for those they do not even know.
But we have a dark side. We export music and movies which some parts of the world see as evil. To them, our freedom of expression is proof we are the great Satan. Why must we continue to show this side of ourselves? Must we, in the name of artistic expression and freedom of speech, produce pornographic movies and rock songs espousing violence? Would our country suffer without them? After all, while we were going to the movies and watching fictional thrillers and spy stories, complete with special effects pyrotechnics, flesh and blood men were planning the real thing. Even though we abhor state sponsored censorship, can we not censor ourselves and present a better picture of our goodness to the world?
Must we also continue to be so greedy? On a daily basis, the bottom line in America is always money. While that has made us a wealthy nation it has also made others envy and hate us. Must our corporations care so much about huge profits that they refuse to pay a living wage to Americans and instead take advantage of the poverty of other nations to pay a pittance to workers there? Must they pollute environments and create 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases while they pressure our government not to sign the Kyoto environmental treaty, leading President Bush to say “I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy or hurt American workers”? He might as well have said “Screw you, countries of the world, we want to drive our SUV’s, build our mansions and get rich.” But are our workers and our economy any more important than those of any other country? Must we insist on being the richest nation in the world? Don’t we understand that as our wealth grows, the envy of others grows as well? Yes we are generous, but we have given a small amount of our own money when we could have helped other nations become prosperous too.
I’m angry that we unwittingly gave the terrorists the weapons to attack us. They used our technology, our airplanes, our flight training, probably even our money. They took advantage of our trusting natures, our friendliness, our willingness to welcome foreigners and accept immigrants and tourists. And they used some of our exports of popular culture to propagandize against us, build religious fervor and recruit young men to commit suicidal/homicidal acts. I am angry at the frivolous, greedy, selfish, narcissistic and immoral side of our culture which - to the Islamic world - masks our seriousness, our generosity and our kindness.
Finally, I am angry because my life, the lives of my children and grandchildren, and America itself will never be the same. Most Americans aren’t striving to be rich or famous. All most of them want is to be with their families, to love them and keep them as safe as possible, to do the work they need to do, to walk down the street without fear, to have enough money to live in a home and buy weekly groceries and to be able to see a doctor when they are sick. Most human beings around the world want the same things. While many citizens of the world have never had those simple luxuries, we in American have, and today, for the first time in my life, I am worried that this could change.
Terrorism could destroy everything - our security, our economy, our environment, our freedom, our ability to protect our families. The attack of September 11 has already had an impact. And to some extent, those who have grasped for superfluous material wealth, unlimited sexual freedom, hedonistic personal pleasures, excessive power and celebrity and even questionable “artistic expression” have presented a vision of America to the madmen of the world which has given them a fanatical justification to plot our destruction.
While I condemn Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who so callously stated that we deserved this horrendous attack because of our immorality, I nevertheless am angry at those in America who lure and are lured by so much that contradicts the values we once stood for. America, the land and the people I love, did not deserve this. So, in addition to waging a war against terrorism, America must realize that the rest of the world is watching us. We can be a good role model or we can be ugly Americans. We can give all people a reason to love and admire us or to hate and condemn us.
While we root out those lunatics who would kill themselves and others in a twisted and rabid sense of God’s will, we must also face the choice before us. We can educate ourselves about those who view the world from a different perspective, and reevaluate our values, our foreign policy and our priorities. We can export our goodness instead of our vacuous popular culture, use our enormous resources to lead and help the world, protect the environment and focus on the things that really matter, or we can remain self-indulgent, capricious and complacent.
What is called for now is a new American dream, not the one that is limited to our shores and concerned about economic success, but one that includes the rest of the world. We can no longer afford to be a nation that thinks only of its own citizens. We cannot remain rugged individualists and single-minded entrepreneurs. Nor can some of our citizens continue to insist that we are a “Christian nation” that must convert others to our beliefs.
Our new American dream must be world peace, tolerance among believers of all the world’s religions, and cooperation and understanding among nations. We must listen to those abroad who hate us and envy us. We may not agree with them, we may believe they have misjudged us, we do not have to give in to their demands, but we must listen nonetheless. You don’t have to agree with someone to listen to them. We must digest their words and look at ourselves. Yes, it’s time for us to defend ourselves and put an end to terrorism, but it’s also time for us to examine our national conscience.
One thing I think a lot of people are missing is that Wright's angry sermon after 9/11 was given when a lot of people were angry. He was not a politician, not speaking to a national audience. He was talking to his African American flock that had known terrorism of one variety or another for generations. He was speaking in a language few if any white churches are familiar with and he was coming from an attempt to understand 9/11, and to put it into a context his congregation could understand.
It has been a long time since the Emancipation Proclomation, and a lot of whites think slavery and discrimination ended then, but any African American can tell you they still face discrimination. The recent subprime meltdown, for example, is a testimonial to the fact that far more blacks were targeted for unfair loans than whites. And the candidacy of Obama has brought racism to the fore, even from his opponent on the Democratic side. Angry sermons in African American churches should therefore not surprise or horrify us.
It has also been a long time since 9/11 and a lot of us have forgotten how angry many of us were, and how we were searching to understand what had happened and why. Some of us (like Bush) put all the blame on Islam and a handful of militants. Other of us, including me, saw a bigger picture in failings of our government and foreign policies that caused "blowback." This is what Rev. Wright was saying in that sermon after 9/11.
I went back into my own writings from that time and found an article I wrote shortly after 9/11. I include it here. It is full of anger.
********************************************************************************
First shock, then horror, then grief. Finally anger. I’m angry!
Naturally, most of my anger is directed towards the terrorists who, in their fanaticism and ignorance, their inhumanity and evil, killed thousands of Americans and visitors from other countries, and destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of others. I’m angry because they robbed countless children of their parents, parents of their children, husbands of their wives and wives of their husbands. They took away aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends, fiances, boyfriends and girlfriends.
I’m angry because these foreign invaders robbed us all of our security. How can we ever again trust - as we once did - in the safety of our airplanes, the stability of our high rise buildings, the purity of our water and air, the hearts, minds and intentions of some of those walking freely among us, using the civil liberties we so generously extend to them to hurt us? Oh, we will say in a burst of patriotism that we can’t let the terrorists win by being afraid, but those are words. We are afraid!
I’m outraged at a fanatical wealthy Muslim whose name invades every newspaper, magazine and television news broadcast - Osama bin Ladin, the man now hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. I loathe his protestations of Islamic piety which contradict everything true faith in God teaches, and the Taliban who harbor him and match him in their cruel, indiscriminate violence against their own people, especially their women.
But I’m not just angry at the terrorists. The value of justifiable anger is that it forces one to think and urges one to action. My anger calls on me to look, not only at others but also at myself, not only at other nations and religions, but also at my own. And so my anger is directed far beyond the 19 hijackers and the cells of Islamic fundamentalists all around the world who even today continue to conspire against the United States, Israel, and western culture. I am also angry at those closer to home.
I’m angry at the intelligence agencies for failing us. Perhaps that’s unfair, but it now appears that the CIA, FBI and other agencies whom we count on to keep us protected, knew for a long time about the dangers of terrorism and still did not prevent this horror. I’m angry at budget cuts and regulations which prevented these agencies from doing their jobs as well as they could have.
I’m angry at our political leaders who focused so much on protecting our borders against drug dealers and illegal immigrants that they allowed madmen from the middle east to enter our country and stay for years to plan their evil deeds. Why did we have a very visible “war on drugs” long before we focused on terrorism?
I’m angry at Republicans for spewing so much hate against President Clinton, and spending so much valuable time examining his sex life, that they neglected the work of intelligence and counter terrorism and at the same time gave our enemies reason to believe we were a frivolous people, an easy target.
I’m angry at Democrats and Republicans for prolonging the recent presidential election and leaving our country in limbo for so many months. In the wake of the deaths of over three thousand people, I’m angry at our pettiness.
I’m angry at years of short sighted foreign policy - both Republican and Democrat - that has given power and arms to our current enemies and cost the lives of so many military and civilians, all in an effort to promote our current interests. Didn’t we help Saddam Hussein in his fight against Iran and didn’t that only give him the ammunition he needed to fight us a few years later? Didn’t we support the Taliban against the Soviet Union? When will we learn?
I’m angry at the owners of a few flight schools who were more interested in making money teaching Arab men to fly “but not take off and land,” than in notifying authorities of such suspicious requests. Again, it’s probably an unfair accusation, but anger is there nonetheless.
I’m angry at the media for becoming more a purveyor of entertainment than an essential source of needed information. While the plot to destroy America was being hatched, surely the biggest story of the past fifty years, the media were busy playing Sherlock Holmes in the case of Gary Condit and the missing intern. Where were the brilliant investigative journalists when we really needed them? Now the media is fully engaged, each television network obsessed with the story of September 11 and America’s plans to respond, some giving music and a title to their coverage, as if the events of the past weeks are a mini-series. What rationale, I ask, is behind CNN calling their coverage America’s “New War” as if current events have to do with fashion or the promotion of a new product?
I am angry at the complacency and blindness of the masses of American people, including myself, who care more about their latest trip to McDonald’s or the prestige of the university - or even preschool - they wish their children to attend than they do about their fellow human beings on the other side of the world who have neither food nor water, let alone any education. In fact, it is both poverty and ignorance that allows a few mad leaders to build hatred among their uneducated followers, hatred that targets an entire culture.
I’m angry at everyone in this country - from the politicians to the car manufacturers - who refused to develop alternate sources of energy so that we could stop our dependency on corrupt dictatorships in the middle east for oil to feed our gas guzzling SUVs.
I’m angry at all the good Muslims who did not speak against those who have hijacked their religion for their own purposes. They complain now that they are being discriminated against, but they shouldn’t really be surprised. If in months and years past they had loudly and passionately condemned those who plot murder and destruction while professing to be devout Muslims, Americans could make a distinction. But they remained silent while they allowed radical murderers to define their religion, worship in their mosques and collect money from them to commit murder.
I’m angry at all religious fundamentalists, not just the Islamic variety. From the crusades and inquisition, undertakings performed in the name of Christ, to the militant leaders of the pro-life movement who inspire men to kill doctors, religious fundamentalists bring violence and hate to the world. Is the killing of a doctor by a “Christian” any less a violation of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” than the act of a suicide bomber? Genuine holy people do not murder human beings, nor say, as did Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson, that a people deserve to be murdered. Those who kill in the name of God, Yahweh or Allah are anything but holy. They may be fervent, passionate believers in something, but it is related neither to God nor to holiness.
My anger, however, does not dim my love for my country. Americans may sometimes be frivolous and arrogant, but we can be a great people. We look at all sides of an issue; we tolerate multiple viewpoints; we have freedom of speech and religion; we care for our elderly and our sick. Large numbers of our citizens provide health care and food to our poor as well as the poor all around the world where we are welcome. We rescue those in danger, even giving our lives to save others, and we give generously to victims of disasters. No one who is paying attention to the stories of the past three weeks can deny that America is a nation of heroes who would sacrifice their lives for those they do not even know.
But we have a dark side. We export music and movies which some parts of the world see as evil. To them, our freedom of expression is proof we are the great Satan. Why must we continue to show this side of ourselves? Must we, in the name of artistic expression and freedom of speech, produce pornographic movies and rock songs espousing violence? Would our country suffer without them? After all, while we were going to the movies and watching fictional thrillers and spy stories, complete with special effects pyrotechnics, flesh and blood men were planning the real thing. Even though we abhor state sponsored censorship, can we not censor ourselves and present a better picture of our goodness to the world?
Must we also continue to be so greedy? On a daily basis, the bottom line in America is always money. While that has made us a wealthy nation it has also made others envy and hate us. Must our corporations care so much about huge profits that they refuse to pay a living wage to Americans and instead take advantage of the poverty of other nations to pay a pittance to workers there? Must they pollute environments and create 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases while they pressure our government not to sign the Kyoto environmental treaty, leading President Bush to say “I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy or hurt American workers”? He might as well have said “Screw you, countries of the world, we want to drive our SUV’s, build our mansions and get rich.” But are our workers and our economy any more important than those of any other country? Must we insist on being the richest nation in the world? Don’t we understand that as our wealth grows, the envy of others grows as well? Yes we are generous, but we have given a small amount of our own money when we could have helped other nations become prosperous too.
I’m angry that we unwittingly gave the terrorists the weapons to attack us. They used our technology, our airplanes, our flight training, probably even our money. They took advantage of our trusting natures, our friendliness, our willingness to welcome foreigners and accept immigrants and tourists. And they used some of our exports of popular culture to propagandize against us, build religious fervor and recruit young men to commit suicidal/homicidal acts. I am angry at the frivolous, greedy, selfish, narcissistic and immoral side of our culture which - to the Islamic world - masks our seriousness, our generosity and our kindness.
Finally, I am angry because my life, the lives of my children and grandchildren, and America itself will never be the same. Most Americans aren’t striving to be rich or famous. All most of them want is to be with their families, to love them and keep them as safe as possible, to do the work they need to do, to walk down the street without fear, to have enough money to live in a home and buy weekly groceries and to be able to see a doctor when they are sick. Most human beings around the world want the same things. While many citizens of the world have never had those simple luxuries, we in American have, and today, for the first time in my life, I am worried that this could change.
Terrorism could destroy everything - our security, our economy, our environment, our freedom, our ability to protect our families. The attack of September 11 has already had an impact. And to some extent, those who have grasped for superfluous material wealth, unlimited sexual freedom, hedonistic personal pleasures, excessive power and celebrity and even questionable “artistic expression” have presented a vision of America to the madmen of the world which has given them a fanatical justification to plot our destruction.
While I condemn Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who so callously stated that we deserved this horrendous attack because of our immorality, I nevertheless am angry at those in America who lure and are lured by so much that contradicts the values we once stood for. America, the land and the people I love, did not deserve this. So, in addition to waging a war against terrorism, America must realize that the rest of the world is watching us. We can be a good role model or we can be ugly Americans. We can give all people a reason to love and admire us or to hate and condemn us.
While we root out those lunatics who would kill themselves and others in a twisted and rabid sense of God’s will, we must also face the choice before us. We can educate ourselves about those who view the world from a different perspective, and reevaluate our values, our foreign policy and our priorities. We can export our goodness instead of our vacuous popular culture, use our enormous resources to lead and help the world, protect the environment and focus on the things that really matter, or we can remain self-indulgent, capricious and complacent.
What is called for now is a new American dream, not the one that is limited to our shores and concerned about economic success, but one that includes the rest of the world. We can no longer afford to be a nation that thinks only of its own citizens. We cannot remain rugged individualists and single-minded entrepreneurs. Nor can some of our citizens continue to insist that we are a “Christian nation” that must convert others to our beliefs.
Our new American dream must be world peace, tolerance among believers of all the world’s religions, and cooperation and understanding among nations. We must listen to those abroad who hate us and envy us. We may not agree with them, we may believe they have misjudged us, we do not have to give in to their demands, but we must listen nonetheless. You don’t have to agree with someone to listen to them. We must digest their words and look at ourselves. Yes, it’s time for us to defend ourselves and put an end to terrorism, but it’s also time for us to examine our national conscience.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
National Rorschach Test
Every national election teaches us something, not only about the candidates, but also about ourselves as voters and, sadly, about the weaknesses of modern democracy.
The 2000 election taught us that in an evenly divided electorate, a third party candidacy can enable the winner of the popular vote to be the loser. We also learned that a ruthless campaign manager/strategist can figure out how to "win" an election, even when his candidate loses the popular vote. And, of course, we learned that it is possible to steal an election if you are bold enough, if your brother is governor of a crucial state and can scrub the voting rolls, and if you have campaign staff thugs who are willing to pose as ordinary people demanding that a legal recount be stopped.
In 2004 we learned that fear, partly based a real threat, but stoked by lies and exaggerations, can determine the outcome of an election and that "independent" groups can spread lies about a candidate they oppose and sink that candidate's chances. We learned, in other words, that you can lie your way into the White House.
In this election, there are already lessons. Just yesterday we learned that "poverty" will never be the most important issue in a campaign (the corporate media will not allow it to be) and that the candidates who survive in a primary are always the ones with the most money and the most media fascination. We also learned that strategy counts, you can't skip the early primaries and expect to win, and fear isn't the issue it was four years ago. Invoking 9/11 and Islamofascism simply isn't enough to get you the nomination. Even though John Mccain continues to talk about terrorism and Islamofascism, exit polls in Florida revealed that the voters who cared most about the economy as well as the voters who want us out of Iraq cast the most votes for John MCain. So Republicans are voting for McCain not because of his desire to stay in Iraq indefinitely, but in spite of it. Hence, another lesson: voters choose candidates for reasons other than the issues.
What does this mean for the Democratic primary? Who knows? The Democratic electorate seems evenly divided between support for the first woman candidate and the first black candidate. Reading the blogs, and especially the comments by ordinary citizens at the end of the blogs, indicates that this primary is one big Rorschach test, with voters seeing what they want to see in their candidate, or as Bill Clinton says "In the primary, you fall in love with a candidate."
Some people have fallen in love with Hillary Clinton because, after sixteen years, they believe she is a known commodity, or because she is a woman, because they believe she will advocate for woman's issues much better than a man, because they actually want Bill back in the White House, because they trust she can be as good a commander in chief as any man, because she is tough enough to stomp on Republicans. They see Obama as too untested, no matter how good he sounds.
Others have fallen in love with Barack Obama. They like that he is a fresh, new face, that he doesn't have sixteen years of baggage, political loyalties, and corporate interests to define him. They contrast his strategy of uniting diverse groups of people to build a large majority including non-Democrats, in his campaign, rather than pulling together specific interest groups to eke out a 51% victory. They like listening to him, and being inspired by him, and they think those are just as important in getting the country to unite behind a president as are years of experience and toughness.
In the end, what I am learning is that in the Democratic primary voters are divided between trusting someone they know from the past, because of her intelligence and in spite of her baggage, and trusting someone less known, whose oratory, confidence and intelligence inspires them.
How this will all come down on Super Tuesday, is anybody's guess.
The 2000 election taught us that in an evenly divided electorate, a third party candidacy can enable the winner of the popular vote to be the loser. We also learned that a ruthless campaign manager/strategist can figure out how to "win" an election, even when his candidate loses the popular vote. And, of course, we learned that it is possible to steal an election if you are bold enough, if your brother is governor of a crucial state and can scrub the voting rolls, and if you have campaign staff thugs who are willing to pose as ordinary people demanding that a legal recount be stopped.
In 2004 we learned that fear, partly based a real threat, but stoked by lies and exaggerations, can determine the outcome of an election and that "independent" groups can spread lies about a candidate they oppose and sink that candidate's chances. We learned, in other words, that you can lie your way into the White House.
In this election, there are already lessons. Just yesterday we learned that "poverty" will never be the most important issue in a campaign (the corporate media will not allow it to be) and that the candidates who survive in a primary are always the ones with the most money and the most media fascination. We also learned that strategy counts, you can't skip the early primaries and expect to win, and fear isn't the issue it was four years ago. Invoking 9/11 and Islamofascism simply isn't enough to get you the nomination. Even though John Mccain continues to talk about terrorism and Islamofascism, exit polls in Florida revealed that the voters who cared most about the economy as well as the voters who want us out of Iraq cast the most votes for John MCain. So Republicans are voting for McCain not because of his desire to stay in Iraq indefinitely, but in spite of it. Hence, another lesson: voters choose candidates for reasons other than the issues.
What does this mean for the Democratic primary? Who knows? The Democratic electorate seems evenly divided between support for the first woman candidate and the first black candidate. Reading the blogs, and especially the comments by ordinary citizens at the end of the blogs, indicates that this primary is one big Rorschach test, with voters seeing what they want to see in their candidate, or as Bill Clinton says "In the primary, you fall in love with a candidate."
Some people have fallen in love with Hillary Clinton because, after sixteen years, they believe she is a known commodity, or because she is a woman, because they believe she will advocate for woman's issues much better than a man, because they actually want Bill back in the White House, because they trust she can be as good a commander in chief as any man, because she is tough enough to stomp on Republicans. They see Obama as too untested, no matter how good he sounds.
Others have fallen in love with Barack Obama. They like that he is a fresh, new face, that he doesn't have sixteen years of baggage, political loyalties, and corporate interests to define him. They contrast his strategy of uniting diverse groups of people to build a large majority including non-Democrats, in his campaign, rather than pulling together specific interest groups to eke out a 51% victory. They like listening to him, and being inspired by him, and they think those are just as important in getting the country to unite behind a president as are years of experience and toughness.
In the end, what I am learning is that in the Democratic primary voters are divided between trusting someone they know from the past, because of her intelligence and in spite of her baggage, and trusting someone less known, whose oratory, confidence and intelligence inspires them.
How this will all come down on Super Tuesday, is anybody's guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)