The McCarthy Legacy

Back in the early 1950’s America was haunted by a witch-hunter named Joseph McCarthy. He was a mainly a one man show who managed to work up an anti-communist frenzy across the country which resulted in a lot of professional lives left in ruin and a national paranoia the likes of which has not been seen in America until the election of our first black President and the subsequent rise of the Tea Party movement. I remember the McCarthy hearings well, for they were the first day time television I had witnessed as a child growing up among what would be called moderate Republicans today.
Ever since the Obama election liberals have been the proverbial frogs in the kettle of water. In these times, there are numerous voices heating up the witch-hunt, fueling the fire that heats the water that eventually will boil the frogs unless they have the wisdom to simply stop sitting there pretending they can take the heat of the conservatives’ cauldron when in fact the temperature is near the boiling point. These heat-generating irrational voices come from Fox News, talk radio, the House of Representatives, the Senate: in short, they are a siren-like chorus that enchants and infuriates the public to such a degree that the bricks and spit have already begun to fly. Guns and grenades may be just around the corner. Enough of taking the heat.
Meanwhile, the national conversation has shifted to such a conservative extreme that what was once moderate Republican thinking is now labeled socialist or liberal. For example, the health care bill that the House just passed is a mere shadow of what Nixon proposed in the 1970’s. What used to be Republican thinking is now labeled socialist, and what is now Republican thinking is simply anti-governmental or the party of NO.
Most of the Tea Party types are losers. They think like losers and act like losers. That’s what happens when you think only defensively, only reductively, only negatively. You define your existence by what you are against, not for. You score no points because you are too busy trying to prevent the other side from scoring any. It is a strategy that goes nowhere but down.
The Democratic Party seized the middle of the political spectrum in the last election and has slowly but carefully maintained a centrist course, much to the chagrin of true liberals, who would much rather have seen an expanded Medicare program come out of congress than this 30 million new accounts cornucopia for the insurance industry.
However, the new McCarthy-ites are not having any of it, even if the bill is mostly derived from old Republican ideas. They want less government, or even no government, because they have nowhere to go philosophically except further right into some wild new frontier of libertarian nihilism, the middle ground having been occupied by the Democrats because the middle ground was vacated by the right as they looked for higher ground from which to look down on the land they relinquished. They sooner or later will find that the soil is rather thin the higher you go. So they are left with nothing but denial: No nothing. No. Just say no.
The problem in America is that the true liberal has been left behind, disenfranchised, by the Democratic Party shift to the middle. You would never know it as a problem because the extreme right holds most of the apparent microphones and megaphones. In fact, actual liberal views are buried beneath whatever ground is being managed by the party in power namely, the Democrats.
The good news is that as long as the Tea Party folks have sway over the Republicans, the Democrats can rest assured that the Republicans will be a long time in trying to reclaim that very fertile middle ground.

The Assumption Divide

The things that separate conservatives and liberals begin with very different assumptions about what is important and what works. All of their approaches to problem-solving stem from their often differing assumptions about responsibility, function, and progress. Here are a few of the assumptions conservatives (Con) and liberals (Lib) tend to embrace:
1. Con: Capitalism creates competition, and that is good.
Lib: Cooperation rather than competition serves the people best.
2. Con: The “playing field” will never be level and never has been.
Lib: The “playing field” can be made more level through law and policy.
3. Con: The individual is entirely responsible for his/her own outcome.
Lib: Government’s job is to protect the weak from the exploitation of the strong.
4. Con: Criminals should be punished. (stick)
Lib: Criminals should be rehabilitated. (therapy, education)
5. Con: Economies must grow to survive.
Lib: The ideal economy is sustainable.
6. Con: That which governs best governs least.
Lib: Government should be a player, not just a referee.
7. Con: People are self-interested, motivated by fear and greed, driven by competition.
Lib: People are naturally good, like to work, and tend to contribute to society.
8. Con: Caveat Emptor (Let the buyer beware.)
Lib: Caveat Venditor (Let the seller beware.)
9. Con: Market volatility is the price for opportunity.
Lib: Economic security is more important than getting rich.
10. Con: Wealth is a right.
Lib: Wealth is a privilege.
11. Con: Health care is a privilege.
Lib: Health care is a right.

There are many more assumptions that both liberals and conservatives make, but these are enough to show that most political positions assumed by either group are based on assumptions about human behavior.
Conservatives assume that human nature is untrustworthy, selfish, and by nature aggressive, so why not accept those “facts” and build an economic system that utilizes that nature? If folks get out of hand, simply punish them. Otherwise, let the system self-correct. Capitalism, for them, is as close to a perpetual motion economic machine as mankind can find.
Liberals, on the other hand, always seem to want to give mankind the benefit of the doubt and assume that people can be cooperative, can change, and can be reformed with just the right therapy or positive incentive. They also see losers as victims of the system rather than flawed individuals who simply don’t have the gumption to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (not that anyone wears bootstraps these days) and try again. The conservative likes to use old adages like the one referring to bootstraps to validate his view that losers remain losers because they give up trying to win.
Each group’s assumptions about human nature are, in part, the direct result of the other’s existence. They are a chicken and egg duo that continues to drive politics today. Neither is entirely right or wrong but is simply one side of the spectrum that is the reality of human nature.
There was a time when politics was a meeting place for ideas. Today, it is a battleground where self-righteous pontification takes the place of dialogue and the possible arrival at that “settlement in the wilderness” called Consensus. The U.S. Senate in particular is the primary locus of the most uncivil war since the one Lincoln presided over. Neither liberals nor conservatives have a handle on the exact nature of humankind, and therefore neither should be so trusting of the assumptions each holds so dear. Given the behavior they exhibit from either side of the aisle, they are in no position to make any claims on a true knowledge of human nature except that it is flawed and in need of something beyond the status quo.
Today’s health care debate is supposedly about principles. Most of it is about manufactured nonsense and irrational fear based on false assumptions. The debate does not even come down to the last pair of assumptions in the list: Is health care a right or a privilege? At whose profit is lack of health care justifiable and at whose is it not?
When the well-being of the corporation takes precedence over the well-being of the citizen, something has gone wrong with somebody’s assumption scheme, and something has to change. Otherwise, that old adage about “the strength of a society is measured by its capacity to care for its weak and elderly” has no currency, and we are left with the mechanistic ‘survival of the fittest. As a result, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as our ideals seem lost in the wake of survival mode.

Obama: Lion or Lamb?

I normally don’t put much stock in Chinese New Year symbols, but this year, starting on February 14th, Valentine’s Day in the West, the Chinese will begin the year of the tiger. Now the only tiger we identify in our own culture is Tiger Woods, and since his stock is way down right now, the year of the tiger will probably remain ironic at best in the U.S. Our tiger is currently toothless and being retooled (I mean rehabbed) in Mississippi, where sex addiction is apparently best addressed, Mississippi and sex addiction treatment seeming strange bedfellows aside.
For the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama has been much the lamb. He has tried to reach out to Republicans, find common ground, pursue consensus, and leave the law-making to congress, all of which has led to a decline in the country’s perception of him as a leader. While the nation seems to like him as a person, when they can separate the two roles in their minds, they have concluded that he is not the leader they had hoped for. Had he lined up with the Chinese symbol of 2009, he would have adopted the persona of the ox, not a likely persona for the slim, fit, agile person that he is. Besides, the last think the country needed was a bull in a china shop approach to issues, although he might have used that image to good effect with Wall Street, who know a bull when they see one, or so they keep telling us.
What this country needs right now is a lion, not a lamb. It is time for Obama to take off the kid gloves, stand up to the Republicans, show them that they are mere capons, not roosters they think they are, and roar and claw his way back into the leadership role the country expected him to assume in the first place. He should stop being so accommodating to the Republicans, especially now that they have rearmed themselves with that insidious weapon of mass destruction: the filibuster. Now there is no reason for Obama to worry about appearing a bully.
The primary reason Scott Brown won so easily in the Massachusetts election for Ted Kennedy’s former seat was that Scott looks and acts like a leader. His opponent did not. The heavily and traditionally democratic Massachusetts electorate, representing the general electorate as a whole because it was the only election available, sent a signal to Washington that the American people are sensing a vacuum in leadership that actually both represents and leads them. It is tired of seeing what it perceives to be the continued tiptoeing, kowtowing, and slinking around among politicians who are funded and influenced by special interest groups like Wall Street, the insurance industry, Big Oil, or corporate health care. They are desperate for a representative of Main Street and they found their first potential hero in Scott Brown.
America is purportedly a nation whose majority is at least descended from the Christian tradition. It is ironic, therefore, to be asking the President to be more the lion than the lamb, given the historic relationship between the Christians and the lions. However, Americans have never been consistent or wholehearted in their application of Christian virtues and imagery. For example, America loves football, a very violent sport in which never a cheek is turned. America is not in a generous position or mood today, especially toward other Americans. It saves its generosity for disasters outside America, such as the aftermath of the earthquakes in Haiti.
Barack Obama is the head of the Democratic Party. No democratic candidate can look forward to the 2010 election unless Obama changes his persona and starts acting as if he is king of the jungle rather than a lamb being readied for a Republican spit. If he is not bolder, he may end up an isolated black sheep, an image the racists would surely love to promote. Lambs negotiate; lions don’t.
America would rather respect and gain confidence in a lion than lie down with a lamb.

Wanted: Untouchables

The old untouchables were the Federal good guy agents led by Eliot Ness in 1929 who waged a war against organized crime led by Al Capone of Chicago. The Eliot Ness folks were dubbed the untouchables because they were incorruptible. They were beyond bribery and undeterred by bullets.
Today, we have another menace that threatens the entire country, not just Chicago. It is the small group of the largest banks that brought our economy to its knees in the past two years and who continue to flaunt their own sense of imperviousness to accountability. They indulge in lavish bonuses for their top guns at the expense of the common taxpayer.
Like Capone, Wall Street has traded in toxic assets and operated above the law. In Capone’s time, he simply broke the law and traded in toxic assets called liquor, while ignoring Prohibition. Wall Street dealt in toxic assets that were bundled into derivatives which were traded outside the scope of the law. There were no regulations protecting the public from derivatives. Lloyd Blankfein, head of Goldman Sachs, was quoted as saying that his firm was “doing God’s work.” Al Capone, I am sure, was seen as a Godfather figure. However, Capone never asked the government for bail let alone a bailout.
Unlike Capone, Wall Street sees no government agency or government leader capable of challenging its self-indulgence because it has brethren carefully planted across the spectrum of government power that might, under less corrupt circumstances, exercise reform. Unfortunately there is nary a politician in Washington who has not benefitted from Wall Street’s campaign contributions, thanks to the lack of any real self-imposed campaign finance reform. Therefore, there is no eager Eliot Ness who might be commissioned by the federal government to regulate Wall Street. There appear to be no “untouchables” or even potential “untouchables” on the horizon. Or perhaps there are.
Another Eliot, Eliot Spitzer, once wielded a heavy sword on Wall Street as New York Attorney General, but unfortunately he had an Achilles heel attached to another appendage. Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut A.G. who appears to have no hidden weaknesses, is now a candidate for the Senate replacing Chris Dodd who is “retiring.” Perhaps Blumenthal can step up and lead the reform effort, but we would have to wait until next year, and that will be too late to prevent the next cloudy bubble rising over Wall Street.
The current attorney general of the United States, Eric Holder, has yet to play his hand, if he legally has any cards to play. Perhaps he will find a way to bring Wall Street to justice and relieve America of the rage it feels toward Wall Street and government alike, both symbols of callous self-indulgence, capitalism at its worst, corruption, and complicity.
In any case, America needs a new generation of untouchables to come along and clean up the brazen disregard of what government and capitalism are meant to serve: namely, the people, not the Capones or the Wall Street Cojones.
The American people are not helpless in pursuing reform. They can become one gigantic group of untouchables themselves, and they can start by making three very effective moves:
1. Remove all investments and deposits connected with the large and culpable banks. Tear up credit cards connected with same.
2. Write current senators and representatives and tell them you want to see substantial and real reform of Wall Street before June, 2010.
3. From now on the people should elect only politicians who refuse corporate donations to their campaigns.
Tea Party folks take note: Given the size and power of the corporations, small government is the last thing you actually want first. What America needs first is actual representative government, which means “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The only way that can happen is if we the people actually fund their campaigns instead of leaving it to the Wall Street or corporate machine.

Wall Street Is Dodge City

You probably never thought Wall Street as a frontier town, but that is just what it is in the minds who occupy it. It is the last great place where you can make a fortune without fear of regulation and rules. You can mine for whatever you want and even make up products that never existed before you invented them. It is the last frontier where the sharp guys from the East finally outsmart the cowboys and end up owning the ranch. The Western has been replaced by the Eastern.
No sheriff need apply. As soon as there is any mention of a sheriff, the Wall Street gun-slingers try to stonewall the suggestion, insisting that they have things under control, or if they don’t, the Market (God) will provide the correction necessary to bring justice sooner or later. Trust in the Market, they say.
There is no other money moving institution left on earth that does not have some sort of regulation or accountability imposed on the players. That’s what makes Wall Street the last frontier, the Dodge City of the 21st Century.
For example, even in one of the most rough and tumble worlds in existence, the NFL, the players are not left to merely say “my bad” when they make a mistake such as hitting someone out of bounds or grabbing a face mask. They are penalized by referees who manage the game and impose regulations agreed upon by the owners to protect their investments, keep the game sustainable, and exercise justice.
In the recent Wall Street catastrophe, by contrast, there was not only no accountability for error, there was not even an apology forthcoming from any Wall Street banker, other than from Bernie Madoff after he had been caught with his hand in the biggest cookie jar ever. Deregulation clearly had led to chaos.
We as Americans love Westerns. We love the idea of being able to do whatever we want whenever we want to do it. However, we have generally agreed on rules and constraints in almost every sphere of life except on Wall Street. We may not like the specifics of some rules, but we are not disobeying those rules in large numbers. We tend to be law-abiding citizens. Besides, in most Westerns there is a sheriff who sooner or later exercises justice.
In the traditional Western, the good guys wore the white hats, the bad guys the black with slightly shorter brims, and the nerds wore Eastern clothes with a derby. Occasionally the derby was a bad guy, but most of the time he needed the defense of the white hats against the black. The white hats always won in the end, and the derby was either saved or marginalized.
How is it, then, that we have allowed the American Western narrative to be taken over by the Eastern where the nerdy investment banker “gets the girl”? It is an appalling metamorphosis and probably explains why the second amendment is so popular with the Western-minded “cowboys” who drive their pick-ups to their militia gatherings on weekends. They are trying to hang on to the last vestige of the narrative they were taught to believe but have been emasculated by the Easterner who has made Wall Street the “false” last frontier.
The increase in gun purchase of late has more to do with this transformation in the American narrative than any other single factor. Much has been said about it being the result of the election of a black President. That’s true for some but for most it is a deflection or scape-goat for the resentment of the more invisible or amorphous Wall Street nerd who, like the Wizard of Oz, is hidden from sight, unexposed, and therefore hard to scope as a visible target. Obama’s inaction to date keeps him firmly linked to the Eastern narrative in the minds of many.
Until the government makes clear that it will regulate this last and essentially un-Western frontier, the Western narrative will remain resurrected and just as dangerous in its own way as the Eastern narrative of wild Wall Street as Dodge City.

And the Capons Keep Scratching Around*

I have a new, more fitting symbol for the Republican Party. The elephant never was an appropriate mascot for the GOP because the beast is not native to America. You might argue that it is appropriate because the elephant belongs in a zoo or a circus and should not be allowed to run wild in America. I, in turn, would argue that now that the elephant is “in the room” or “on the table,” he is no longer something anyone wants to recognize or discuss. Although the elephant may never forget, what he remembers is some kind of good old days that never existed. His past is a foreign country, not America.
The donkey is a good fit for Democrats. He’s a steady worker, doesn’t lose its cool in adversity, and goes where no mere horse would dare. He helped settle the West. He may be stubborn, but he is able to tackle any terrain with confidence. He sometimes makes an ass of himself, but generally he is dependably dedicated to whatever work needs to be done.
The new symbol I would suggest for the GOP is the capon, a rooster without reproductive capacity. The capon gets fatter and tastier than a rooster, and projects an image of power and stature, but is essentially sterile and impotent. It’s a sort of Baby Huey: large and soft, mostly in the head.
Like the elephant, the capon in sufficient numbers can serve as a roadblock. These are chickens that do not cross the road to get to the other side but make certain nobody gets down the road to progress no matter what. They just sit in the middle of the road to somewhere better and squawk about how the Democrats are on the road to damnation when, in fact, the road is clearly one to real progress.
These capons are a cross between Chicken Little and Foghorn Leghorn: they cackle about socialism or whatever ism other than capitalism lurks in their nightmares, but are too paralyzed by the dead weight of their own convictions to move. They stay their course to nowhere, never offering any direction that does not loop back to where it started or put resources where they are least needed.
The capon is also fitting because it is almost entirely white meat. As an example, just look at Mitch McConnell. Doesn’t he look like a capon? And doesn’t Mitch kind of talk like one would talk if it could? Yes, I know, Rush Limbaugh looks much more like a capon than does Mitch McConnell. Still, can’t you envision the whole Republican caucus with their hands in their pockets scratching around some barnyard looking for a grain of truth among the scattered kernels of their philosophy? Mostly their philosophy is only so much cracked corn.
Let’s go with the capon. It is a new face on an old image, but a more appropriate one for these modern times.
* not to be confused with: "And the Caissons Keep Marching Along"

A Tale of Three Movies

Every Christmas I go to the movies more than I do at any other time of the year. I prefer to read good books if I can, but during the time around Christmas there are usually enough good reviews of movies to help me overcome some inertia, get off the reading couch, and get to the theatre.
This Christmas season I have seen three movies so far: two “feel good” flicks and one “feel bad” couched as a comedy. I happened to see the “feel bad” one first, and it turned out to be the best film of the three, partly because it portrayed most successfully and deeply one of the shallowest characters ever brought to life on page or film. That film is Up in the Air starring George Clooney as the cliché-ridden corporate downsizing surrogate who flies around the country firing employees so that cowardly managers can float above the discomfort that might arise from doing it themselves. His secret goal in life is to attain 10 million miles on American Airlines and thus achieve a status only a few frequent fliers have ever reached. If that isn’t shallow enough, he has a fling with a female fellow traveler, only to end up the victim of the very false sincerity and life compartmentalization he peddles.
The second movie I saw was Invictus, Clint Eastwood’s adaptation of the story by John Carlin of the developing relationship between Nelson Mandela and Francois Pienaar, the captain of the Springbok Rugby team and prominent symbol of the apartheid regime Mandela had just replaced by his election as President of South Africa. The book is titled Playing the Enemy, a title Eastwood dropped in favor of the title of the Victorian poem Mandela had memorized in captivity and used as his inspiration to keep himself from ever losing hope during his nearly three decades of imprisonment on Robben Island. Mandela is played by Morgan Freeman, who creates an image of Mandela as someone positioned between, say, Abraham Lincoln and God. Of course, playing God is old hat to Freeman who actually did so in the movie Bruce Almighty. Therefore, it is no wonder Freeman is able to infuse savior-like qualities into Mandela’s character. By the end of the movie whatever racial tension had been simmering in the country is resolved for a triumphant moment: South Africa wins the World Cup on its home turf and brings together in celebration the new nation without having to arise out of the ashes of civil war.
The third movie was The Blind Side, also based on a true story. This is a modern version of a Horatio Alger Jr. story in which an abandoned, gigantic, educationally malnourished and traumatized young African-American is taken in by an upscale white family. He had been recruited by a football coach at a Memphis Christian private day school that the white family’s kids attend. The person who takes the lead in both the movie and family is the mother, played by Sandra Bullock. The black youth is young Michael Oher, who, thanks primarily to the mother’s love and inspiration, becomes a star lineman for the school and eventually for Ole Miss.
A turning point occurs toward the end of the movie as Michael is trying to make the 2.5 grade point average necessary to qualify for a Division I college scholarship. It all hinges on a final essay, whose topic his adoptive “father”(Tim McGraw) suggests. It is a poem by Tennyson, “The Charge of the Light Brigade” that Michael identifies with, thanks to his “father’s” football allegory interpretation. Michael is able to analyze the poem successfully, finally pleasing his heretofore cynical English teacher to earn the scholarship.
Conspiracy theorists would insist that Hollywood’s turning to Victorian poetry for inspiration means they are up to some kind of bizarre leverage or subliminal messaging, but these two “feel good” films could not be philosophically further from each other. They are meant to move whole different species of human sensibilities. The movie Invictus is about the successful, bloodless revolution of South Africa in which the black majority gains representative power over the white minority that has ruled for centuries. It is about justice on a grand scale, not a personal one. It is about a hero who brings peace and hope to a whole country, not to just one individual or to one sector.
The Blind Side, on the other hand, is a personal “feel good” movie if there ever was one. It shows the individual actions of white individuals, identified as Republicans at one point when they hire a tutor (Kathy Bates), who happens to be a Democrat, to support their new “black son.” They gloat the irony of having a black son before they have ever even met a Democrat. They courageously reach out to a lost young man with lots of hidden potential and help him become a success on his own terms. He chooses his destiny, as the film painstakingly elaborates and insists. The family only helps him get there. The implied conclusion is: See? If Michael can do it, any one of those other guys back in the ghetto could have too, but they turned their backs on their opportunities and sank back down into the sucking morass of drugs, gangs, and violence. In short, it shows that it does not take a village to raise a child; it takes strong individuals who reach out from their stronghold of financial security and individual courage to do the right thing. It’s the few, the tough, the marines, the 600 (Light Brigade). “Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die.”
It is manifold irony that two very different films involving race cite two Victorian poems written at the height of the British Empire, the ultimate manifestation of colonialism One poem is passed along from black leader to white; the other from white father to black son. The words of “Invictus” (meaning unconquerable), the poem by Henley, inspire hope for eventual justice for a whole country but are essentially about trusting yourself as the sole source of inspiration (I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul). In contrast, “The Charge of the Light Brigade” says, even if our leaders (the adults in our lives) are wrong, we must do our duty, uphold our honor, and show our courage no matter what. We must do it for the team! Both are incredibly individualistic inspirations that find application in such different ways: one to a whole country, one to a young man.
For Mandela, who is alienated from his family as he takes hold of the Presidency, sees the whole country as his family. He takes the time to learn the names of each of the Springbok players and as much personal information as he can about each. The movie shows Peinaar (Matt Damon) as the primary figure on the team, but we get to meet other individuals, including the black member of the otherwise white squad.
In The Blind Side, Michael’s football team members are nameless and faceless. His “team” is the Tuohy family that adopts him. Their uniqueness and goodness as a family serves as the base from which Michael will launch himself as a unique individual. He has his team, and it is the nuclear family. Mandela’s envisions his team as a whole country.
Is it just the difference between wholesale and retail? I think not. It is the difference between two completely different notions of freedom and justice: one is individual, self-contained, small scale. The other involves finding freedom and justice in belonging to something larger than the self; the larger, the better. One is libertarian; the other liberal. Both are valid, just as the microscope and wide-angle lens have their respective purposes. The question is: can we make room for both in our lives?
I wonder how long it would take for redemption or reconciliation to take hold if we rely solely on the goodness of individuals like the Tuohy family? On the other hand, there are still destitute townships in South Africa where poverty is alive and well. The provision of basic housing and sanitation is long in coming. Mandela’s rainbow coalition is still a dream, held back by a populace still slow to change, both black and white.
So far in America, we keep arguing about which is better: structural or individual justice. Maybe it is time to quit trying to dismiss one in favor of the other. Maybe both are the answer.