This is turning into a long hot summer for America. The East Coast just went through a record-breaking heat wave; La Nina is forecast for the Pacific which usually fries the Midwest; collars are hot all over the Gulf Coast, thanks to the man-made oil-gushing disaster; Main Street is still hot about Wall Street; Republicans are hoping the country will remain hot about bailouts through November; and the Democrats are hot about the blame they are getting for unemployment stagnation, even though the paternity of the Great Recession is easily attributable to the previous administration. Cleveland is hot that Lebron James did not turn down the Heat and remain in Cleveland; and hurricane season is heating up.
Summer is a time of betrayal and intrigue, usually limited to beach novels. Not this summer. Starting with Lebron’s betrayal of Cleveland (but not his dreams and friendships), tossing in the spy exchange just orchestrated by the Russians and the United States, adding the development of the “Spy Pigeon” Drone our military now has available, plus the report that Google Street View has been spying “inadvertently” on American citizens, (no wonder China has agreed to restore its license), Fox should be working on a new reality program called: “Can You Trust a Fifth Grader?”
“Under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. The McCarthy witch hunt for communists had a lot to do with encouraging our country’s leaders to adopt the phrase. Clearly, we could not trust our neighbors to be fully American and not communist, so we came up with an ironclad theocratic phrase to confront the Iron Curtain. Today, given the economic uncertainty of the times, we have become suspicious of anyone and everyone, especially government. We expect government to solve our national problems, and yet we want it to be less intrusive in our lives. We want it to be effective, but when it is not, we want it smaller. Our trust in ourselves as a nation is so low, we want to get rid of or blame the latest wave of immigrants who always, over time, add to rather than subtract from the growth and goodness of our nation.
The spies we just rounded up accomplished nothing while they were here, except that they integrated themselves so successfully they had their neighbors and co-workers completely fooled, but not the FBI or CIA. Those are government institutions, by the way. Want to shrink those agencies now?
Just maybe it is time to renew our trust in our government, and our trust in ourselves to be generous, positive, hopeful, and adaptable. Maybe it is time to put all the anger, mistrust, and misunderstanding aside and renew our pledge of allegiance to the idea of America, not as it is but as it should be: inclusive, magnanimous, and moving in a positive direction. Yes, government should be more efficient and less costly, but I would rather have it strong enough to ferret out spies in our midst as well as put corporations and banks in their place when they start serving only their own short-term interests instead of the greater good. Rather than limit the institutions we can with our vote, we better think twice about what power they can wield on our behalf in the face of spies, BP, and Goldman Sachs. Making government less powerful will only play into the hands of those who would control it if they could and let loose a limitless concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few, rather than spread among the people.
The heat is on, and it is time to cool our heads and warm our hearts, rather than letting the reverse rule the day.
Showing posts with label American culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American culture. Show all posts
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Myth Rules America
America is a nation of believers. Americans may not always be right, but they are seldom in doubt. The current mood of the country is that experience is nothing; change is everything. If at first you don’t succeed, try something else. We are now like men on Christmas Eve, which today means pushing the various buttons on electronic toys until we get them to work. It is all trial and error. It is a wilderness to conquer, not a manual to study. The first time politicians displease us because they have had to make a tough decision, off with their heads.
Tolerance is a product of good times; impatience is a product of bad. Belief strengthens in the face of uncertainty; doubt subsides. We are a decisive people who take action, often before we have thought very hard. Intellectuals think hard, and that leads to nowhere otherwise known as complexity, like that bridge Sarah Palin referenced throughout her VP campaign. We don’t trust complexity, because it smacks of obfuscation. It is a brier patch that no lawn mower can make into a green carpet. We want our lawns spotless; we want our universe well-ordered.
Americans know what is right, and nothing Washington does is ever quite right. Instead, it is mostly or completely wrong. Everything congress puts out looks like a Trojan horse or Mark Twain’s definition of a camel: a horse put together by a committee. A congressional “horse,” no matter what, is never a winner. It is mostly a construct that is disdained by the minority members and passed with held noses by the majority. The recent health care bill was a Trojan horse to both extremes: one group would not even look the gift horse in the mouth and the others were focused on how much the other end produced.
All of this is the product of mutually opposing myths: government can and should steer the American people; government can and should get out of the way of the American people. The libertarians think they have the answer by calling for as little government as possible. Liberals believe that government can serve the people well if only the lobbyists would go away.
As David Brooks pointed out on the News Hour Friday night (May 21, 2010), the centrists have no discernible platform; the moderates have no place. Compromise is corruption. Purity is all. If you’re in the middle, you are merely indecisive. Both sets of extremists insist you are part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. A pragmatist, by definition, prostitutes principles.
America seems to default to principles, even if the principle of by the people, for the people turns out to be by the rich, for the rich. And our principles are faith based, not rooted in actual fact. Libertarians trust self-interest as the governing principle; liberals trust community. We’re either all batters at the plate, or we’re all rowers in a boat. Either the parts are greater than the whole, or the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
No one is right on this, except the folks somewhere in the middle, who see life as a balancing act between individual needs and the greater good. We would surely perish as a people if we all became Gandhi or the guy whose operating principle is: “He who dies with the most toys wins.” Just as a good marriage depends on compromise, not do or die, so does a good society.
Let’s get back to the middle ground where the meeting of minds takes place, rather than trying to live on the wilderness edge of extremism where self-destruction lurks and people shout of freedom out of fear of losing what they have rather than striving for a greater goodness. That means electing and supporting people as our representatives who will do the next right thing, disdain personal gain, and serve the people, not the lobbyists and the corporate giants.
Tolerance is a product of good times; impatience is a product of bad. Belief strengthens in the face of uncertainty; doubt subsides. We are a decisive people who take action, often before we have thought very hard. Intellectuals think hard, and that leads to nowhere otherwise known as complexity, like that bridge Sarah Palin referenced throughout her VP campaign. We don’t trust complexity, because it smacks of obfuscation. It is a brier patch that no lawn mower can make into a green carpet. We want our lawns spotless; we want our universe well-ordered.
Americans know what is right, and nothing Washington does is ever quite right. Instead, it is mostly or completely wrong. Everything congress puts out looks like a Trojan horse or Mark Twain’s definition of a camel: a horse put together by a committee. A congressional “horse,” no matter what, is never a winner. It is mostly a construct that is disdained by the minority members and passed with held noses by the majority. The recent health care bill was a Trojan horse to both extremes: one group would not even look the gift horse in the mouth and the others were focused on how much the other end produced.
All of this is the product of mutually opposing myths: government can and should steer the American people; government can and should get out of the way of the American people. The libertarians think they have the answer by calling for as little government as possible. Liberals believe that government can serve the people well if only the lobbyists would go away.
As David Brooks pointed out on the News Hour Friday night (May 21, 2010), the centrists have no discernible platform; the moderates have no place. Compromise is corruption. Purity is all. If you’re in the middle, you are merely indecisive. Both sets of extremists insist you are part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. A pragmatist, by definition, prostitutes principles.
America seems to default to principles, even if the principle of by the people, for the people turns out to be by the rich, for the rich. And our principles are faith based, not rooted in actual fact. Libertarians trust self-interest as the governing principle; liberals trust community. We’re either all batters at the plate, or we’re all rowers in a boat. Either the parts are greater than the whole, or the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
No one is right on this, except the folks somewhere in the middle, who see life as a balancing act between individual needs and the greater good. We would surely perish as a people if we all became Gandhi or the guy whose operating principle is: “He who dies with the most toys wins.” Just as a good marriage depends on compromise, not do or die, so does a good society.
Let’s get back to the middle ground where the meeting of minds takes place, rather than trying to live on the wilderness edge of extremism where self-destruction lurks and people shout of freedom out of fear of losing what they have rather than striving for a greater goodness. That means electing and supporting people as our representatives who will do the next right thing, disdain personal gain, and serve the people, not the lobbyists and the corporate giants.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Grace
The word grace has had religious connotations for centuries. Religion has presented it essentially in two forms: something earned from or something freely given by a god. In either case, the human being on the receiving end of supposed divine grace was better off than those who were not. Grace was seen as a blessing, an advantage, or a desirable elite status.
I would contend that we would be a lot better off if we simply recognized the concept of grace as a desirable human characteristic and sought to maximize its existence among us. After all, it is we who gave our gods the capacity to bestow it in the first place so why not own it ourselves to produce as much of it as we can. Of all the shortages we can see around us today (jobs, money, happiness, civility) grace is the least present of all.
But just what is this humanistic grace of which I speak? And what is it not? When we think of it at all, it is usually in the form of an adjective: graceful. The dancers who appear on So You Think You Can Dance are often viewed as graceful in their movement even when they are dancing a very rigorous tango or salsa. But the program itself is not at all graceful in that it emphasizes judgment and competition as the measure of success, thus producing a pair of winners and a host of losers. There is little grace in the outcome. There is also no grace in the name of the program which throws down a gauntlet-like challenge and dares you to prove that you can do what you think you can. It’s no encouraging set of words like The Little Engine That Could.
When I was coming of age in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, American Bandstand captivated a whole generation of teenagers who admired the dancing skills of the cast members who were never put in the position of becoming winners or losers. They were all winners much the same way the Mouseketeers were on the Mickey Mouse Club created by Walt Disney. The viewing audiences in both cases were given a variety of personalities to admire and even emulate. The dancing was good, but as a viewer I never felt the need to see a showdown in order to determine who the best dancer was on either program. Must everything be reduced to winners and losers? Was not the grace of it the fact that they were dancing?
Discourse has suffered the same fate of late as dance. Diatribe has replaced dialogue as the means of communication. The win-at-all-cost monologue championed by self-appointed and self-righteous talk show hosts whose might- (following) makes-right attitude has replaced the measured, nuanced rhetoric of well-mannered and thoughtful pursuers of truth like Walter Lippmann and William F. Buckley. Blind certitude is asserted in the face of complexity with a vehemence that precludes any humility or doubt. It is about winning, the truth already having been established. The idea of being graceful is brushed aside as a sign of weakness.
A friend once remarked that if we, as human beings, were completely uninhibited, we would sing to each other rather than talk. Life would be a combination of opera and ballet. It would be about the grace of it all, not the meanness. It would be about bringing out the best in each other in everyday life, which would mean bringing out the grace each of us has inherent in us as human beings. Grace, by my definition, goes beyond mere civility or generosity or art. It is the combination of all human qualities that produce goodness in all its forms and facets. It is the combination of qualities that help us harmonize with our habitats and sing the song of life. It is about singing rather than bickering; dancing rather than trudging; skipping rather than plodding. It is about painting ourselves out of corners rather than into them, and being the am and drinking the tea in team.
The Puritans thought they knew what grace was and believed that you either had it or you didn’t. They had located it in their god, personified it (he) and then doled it out to the select few whose crops did not fail or ships did not sink. We’re still seeing the remnants of that legacy in those who tell us that because they are materially successful or know (for certain) how that happens, that they are the elect who must convey their wisdom to their hopeful followers. Ultimately it is self-serving rationalization, not true grace.
The question is not “So you think you can dance?” The question is will you.
I would contend that we would be a lot better off if we simply recognized the concept of grace as a desirable human characteristic and sought to maximize its existence among us. After all, it is we who gave our gods the capacity to bestow it in the first place so why not own it ourselves to produce as much of it as we can. Of all the shortages we can see around us today (jobs, money, happiness, civility) grace is the least present of all.
But just what is this humanistic grace of which I speak? And what is it not? When we think of it at all, it is usually in the form of an adjective: graceful. The dancers who appear on So You Think You Can Dance are often viewed as graceful in their movement even when they are dancing a very rigorous tango or salsa. But the program itself is not at all graceful in that it emphasizes judgment and competition as the measure of success, thus producing a pair of winners and a host of losers. There is little grace in the outcome. There is also no grace in the name of the program which throws down a gauntlet-like challenge and dares you to prove that you can do what you think you can. It’s no encouraging set of words like The Little Engine That Could.
When I was coming of age in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, American Bandstand captivated a whole generation of teenagers who admired the dancing skills of the cast members who were never put in the position of becoming winners or losers. They were all winners much the same way the Mouseketeers were on the Mickey Mouse Club created by Walt Disney. The viewing audiences in both cases were given a variety of personalities to admire and even emulate. The dancing was good, but as a viewer I never felt the need to see a showdown in order to determine who the best dancer was on either program. Must everything be reduced to winners and losers? Was not the grace of it the fact that they were dancing?
Discourse has suffered the same fate of late as dance. Diatribe has replaced dialogue as the means of communication. The win-at-all-cost monologue championed by self-appointed and self-righteous talk show hosts whose might- (following) makes-right attitude has replaced the measured, nuanced rhetoric of well-mannered and thoughtful pursuers of truth like Walter Lippmann and William F. Buckley. Blind certitude is asserted in the face of complexity with a vehemence that precludes any humility or doubt. It is about winning, the truth already having been established. The idea of being graceful is brushed aside as a sign of weakness.
A friend once remarked that if we, as human beings, were completely uninhibited, we would sing to each other rather than talk. Life would be a combination of opera and ballet. It would be about the grace of it all, not the meanness. It would be about bringing out the best in each other in everyday life, which would mean bringing out the grace each of us has inherent in us as human beings. Grace, by my definition, goes beyond mere civility or generosity or art. It is the combination of all human qualities that produce goodness in all its forms and facets. It is the combination of qualities that help us harmonize with our habitats and sing the song of life. It is about singing rather than bickering; dancing rather than trudging; skipping rather than plodding. It is about painting ourselves out of corners rather than into them, and being the am and drinking the tea in team.
The Puritans thought they knew what grace was and believed that you either had it or you didn’t. They had located it in their god, personified it (he) and then doled it out to the select few whose crops did not fail or ships did not sink. We’re still seeing the remnants of that legacy in those who tell us that because they are materially successful or know (for certain) how that happens, that they are the elect who must convey their wisdom to their hopeful followers. Ultimately it is self-serving rationalization, not true grace.
The question is not “So you think you can dance?” The question is will you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
