Photo-op over substance

For the past 30 years, since the Reagan administration, style and the photo-op have ruled over substance. Senator Ensign's (R. Nevada) criticism of President Obama's picture with Hugo Chávez is a case in point. Republicans and Democrats alike have, over the past 3 decades, focused more on the idea that a picture is worth a thousand words than on actual policy and diplomacy. Reagan's use of the photo-op was masterful, as was Bill Clinton's. The idea of "spin," now so common it just passes for politics, elevates the momentary illusion over the complex understanding of reality. Presidents and presidential candidacies have been made and unmade based on spin and photo-ops (Dukakis in the military tank is one great example), and even during presidencies, it seems that great care is taken not to appear with the wrong person.

During the Bush II administration this was very much the case, with carefully orchestrated attempts at making sure that the president was not placed in a situation where he had to do anything more but be in the same room with someone like Chávez. This has also been one of our chief exports; several years ago, during a IMF summit in Mexico, then Mexican President Vicente Fox did everything he could to avoid even being in the same part of the country as Fidel Castro. This begs the question; "If the picture is the thing, how do our politicians resolve our differences?" The issue isn't the picture or the presence in the same room, but rather, shouldn't we be encouraged when our presidents take a nuanced, complex view of the world and the politics it takes to run it. Instead, we have become captive to the idea that a picture substitutes for policy.

This also is a means to increase the partisan divisiveness. We now need not wait for, listen to, or even differ on our opinions regarding policy. All we need is a picture, which in turn becomes proof a policy shift, proof of betrayal of a principle, and of course, proof of betrayal of the American people. Such continues to be the case with this particular instance; one that has been perpetuated by Democrats and Republicans and democrats and republicans alike for over thirty years; pictures simplify and words overly complicate.

The upside of this is, of course, convenience. Being able to rely on a picture upon which to base our opinions means not having to take the time to understand the world in a more complex way. It also makes the job easier for people like Sen. Ensign, since he doesn't have to think very hard either...

It was the economy, stupid...

Once again, the idea that the Republican "strategery" is to criticize the new president for not understanding economic principles demonstrates the perils of "faith-based" economic ideology, as opposed to having any semblance of understanding how the system works. In part, I would argue, the problem is not so much the issue of economic theory, but a fundamental disconnect from having to deal with the consequences of their policies in any substantive way. It is possible to be faithful to this economic ideology (rather than understanding economic principles) because people like JIm Boehner and Newt Gingrich do not suffer at the hands of their failure.

Among the two greatest failures of the RNC over the last twenty years are George W. Bush and Newt Gingrich. The former now seems like a distant memory, exiting to Dallas with barely an afterthought from his own party. One would not have known that the RNC worked in tandem with GWB over the past eight years helping pass the finishing touches on an economy that is now devastating the U.S. and creating tent cities. Gingrich fell out of power long enough ago that he can apparently rise out of the ashes to reaffirm conservative economic ideas, such as small government and a faux free-market ideology that is actually no such thing in their application. Thus, we hear arguments that certain businesses cannot fail, while "greedy" individuals who have too large of a mortgage are treated as if they have sinned mightily.

Among other things, there is a major concern about the plans for us to re-start the economy. The first is that there seems to be no accountability for those who occupy the upper echelon of the system, be they the de-regulators in congress or the corporate hierarchy that took advantage. It is not economic policy, but a political spin of moralization that creates low-level economic sinners and leaving the policy saints in the clear to benefit. In the case of the RNC, they are arguing that somehow they deserve to be architects of future policies to combat the very disaster they constructed. In the case of the corporate elites, they seem prepared to buckle down and do the work of creating jobs for the rest of us, after having been greedy at a rate one thousand times over that of the average home buyer. The same people who convinced the average person to buy a home beyond their means, because they "qualified" for it, are doing another sales job on us.

It should be interesting to see what new products they will now produce for us, so that we can later be blamed for our greediness... We can best help them out by asking for less government oversight, socializing banks but not healthcare or home loans, cutting education, ending pork-barrel spending (because they obviously did so during the past 8 years), and btw, the president needs to be more positive. It is not polite to be negative about receiving a gift from someone, even if you've been re-gifted a Depression economy.

The List: Yes. No. What?

+YES+
+Ellen Goodman's piece on the Bush "No Regrets Tour." He doesn't worry about history in the short term. He doesn't worry about history in the long term. That's because he has people telling him who the good historians are--see Condi Rice below.

+A simpler Christmas and Holiday season, aided and abetted by a Pacific Northwest snowfall.

+Dan Rather making gains on his $70 Million lawsuit against CBS, which seems to be leading to the conclusion that a) the president did pressure CBS and b) CBS caved to the pressure on the Abu Ghraib story.


-NO-
-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggesting that we will soon thank Bush, and when "Asked about historians who say Bush is one of the worst presidents, Rice said those "aren't very good historians." on CNN.com. Yes, because historians aren't normally trained to look back at things and compare them... they just must be bad ones.

-Lexus commercials for reliving your childhood Christmases by delivering a car to your loved one. 1) these commercials have always been ridiculous, and 2) they are just crass at a time when I have spoken with so many people who have simplified and realized how little they miss all the "stuff."

-Dick Cheney on torture on The Moderate Voice.com “Did it produce the desired results? I think it did…it’s been a remarkably successful effort. I think the results speak for themselves.” Yes, we don't have those bothersome principles to stand up for anymore...


?What?
?Evangelist Joel Osteen's blank stares on Larry King's interview with him, when he was asked about gay marriage, and the article in Newsweek contesting the conservative right's interpretation of it. He claimed to not really have looked into the issue of gay marriage (but he can still oppose it), had not read the article, and indeed, almost seemed to be unaware that there was a printed media outside of his own media circle.

?The Madoff pyramid scheme and the losses to people who should know better. What happened to all of the advice about diversifying your accounts so that you didn't lose everything. Goes to show, once again, that greed trumps common sense when deregulation is the mantra. Does this give you faith in privatizing social security for everyone? Of course it does...

?Obama buddy Axelrod on Rick Warren's presence at inauguration as a "healthy thing." Unless you happen to believe in equal rights, not discriminating, or think that there is such a thing as a kinder, gentler homophobia...

?Chip Saltsman, what are you thinking? "The Magic Negro"? "Star Spanglish Banner"? Who knew that the RNC "big tent" would be back, but for bigots... Must have been going for Colin Powell's vote.

Obama and Rick Warren--inclusiveness versus vision

Gay rights activists are upset at the inclusion of Rick Warren for the inauguration, to which the Obama camp replies that they are seeking inclusiveness, and they are reaching out. This is where the future Obama administration needs to distinguish between inclusiveness versus laying out a progressive vision. The choice of Warren is a problem, because it is suggesting that inclusiveness is vision, which it is not.

The United States, especially since the McCarthy era, has demonstrated a notable lack of inclusiveness, discussion over wide-ranging ideas, and a willingness to consider and debate ideas from the left and from the right. That millions of Americans can not only hear about, but actually believe that Obama is a socialist, displays an astounding lack of understanding of what anything remotely on the left stands for, in terms of policy. While this may seem like an unrelated, I would argue the contrary. At this point, U.S. politics has been so devoid of intelligent debate from left, right and center, that we mistake inclusiveness for vision.

Warren can be included by being invited to the inauguration as a guest. However, acknowledging his ideas (which as a Christian, I myself find impossible to get to his oddly split-personality decision) is much different from laying out the the path Obama believes we should take. The use of Warren is not "inclusive," it is tacit approval of his position. Have him there, but then show Warren, Americans everywhere and the world that you have a different and more progressive way of looking at the world; you do this by having someone who is acceptable to the gay community and to those who are supporters of the gay community.

So now we are left to wonder; is Obama really just being inclusive, or is this just a muddled vision?

Fear Itself

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" -Franklin D. Roosevelt

Roosevelt spoke these words to reassure a nation that was sliding into a prolonged economic depression, but these words are also relevant today, although perhaps for different reasons. An undercurrent of the past election campaign, and part of the post-election buzz, is quite literally that of fear. There is fear that Obama will discriminate against Whites, and there is fear and uncertainty over "what" his election means. My own daughters experience this, since they go to school in a place that is quite conservative. There is fear and uncertainty the range from discrimination to the idea that he is a Muslim. It is easy to dismiss these fears, since on the face of it, Obama has neither shown a disposition toward such behavior, nor is he a Muslim (nor should it matter). That being said, it is important to understand where these fears come from.

This is where we need to think of ourselves as a nation, and our trajectory over the past 30 years. Following Carter, who upset people by asking the people of the United States of America to look closely at themselves, the choice was made to look at others. Through our popular and political culture we have created two enemies-the other and each other. The former came in the shape of the fear of the soviets, then Arabs, then extremist Muslims; all seen as a common enemy against we could easily discriminate.

At the same time, we also saw a creation of another enemy--the American who disagrees with us. Beginning with the Reagan administration, but following a thread through every subsequent president, Democrat or Republican, has been a willingness to alienate and run over those with whom we disagree. This was accentuated in the mid-90s, and then came together in one big patriotic bash following 9-11.

So what is the consequence of this? The consequence is that when we discriminate against a whole people, or when we are willing to run each other out of political parties in internecine conflicts, we eventually come to fear that very thing being done to us. It is not that people see actual evidence of an Obama administration doing this to them nor are they imagining it being done to them. No, it is that they have lived it, done, carried it out, and can only imagine what it would feel to be on the end of those same actions. They themselves have provided the concrete model for that which they fear the most.

The fear itself becomes the spark for more fear, and the only a strong counter-dialogue of action may counter it. Words and ideas will not be sufficient, because they are not powerful enough to contradict the reality which has been constructed which has inscribed on our daily lives, on our daily relationships with one another. What we fear is each other at the moment, and it will take time to work out "dies diu".