Monday, July 19, 2010

To the Left, to the Left ...

How about if we start out with a bit of Beyoncé ...

A few years ago I came up with the following philosophy about contemporary U.S. politics: Most Republicans are jackasses, most Democrats are dumbasses, and most third-party and independent candidates try to be smartasses. And when you've got a bunch of asses, what they produce is a bunch of crap.

It was an attempt to be pithy, though more recently I'm thinking it may be too crass and generalized. It certainly suggests some things about my own ideological assumptions. That said, I still think there is something to the basic sentiments it's trying to suggest, and I think a recent situation involving Sarah Palin is a good example of this.

Apparently, Palin made a series of attempts on Twitter to comment on the proposal to build a mosque near the World Trade Center site in Manhattan. In the process, she said "refudiate," which is not actually a word. Some on the left have picked this up as a reason to make fun of her, suggesting or implying once again that this is further evidence that she is quite intellectually challenged.

Now, I am far from a fan of Palin. I think she has been embarrassing in her lack of eluctionary abilities, her apparent lack of even fundamental knowledge of things about which she speaks, and her continued use of simple rhetorical constructions that lack merit, consistency, and coherence. So, I can understand frustration that she has become a prominent political figure in this country. On the other hand, I think focusing energy on her use of "refudiate" is silly, petty, and actually damaging.

I make speaking mistakes all the time. Few, if any, people don't. In fact, during the 2008 election, when folks pointed out the many articulation flaws of Palin, many individuals on the right and in the media would then suggest how Joe Biden isn't perfect either, with reference to gaffes he made. This always frustrated me because making speaking blunders here and there differs significantly from consistently being unable to articulate much of anything with coherence. The former is entirely forgiveable as part of being human; the latter is typically a sign of incompetence. Joe Biden, I believe, fit the former; Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has consistently seemed to fit the latter. Perhaps she will improve. She may gain understanding of issues, learn the nuances of positions, and develop her elocutionary skills. Indeed, an appearance with William Shatner on The Tonight Show a while back actually impressed me. In the meantime, I believe that many of her recent statements and comments show that she still has a long way to go.

And this, I think, gets me back to the political philosophy with which I began. That philosophy called Republicans "jackasses" because so many of them seem so willing to use anything to gain and maintain power. They're effective at it, and they can be downright ruthless about it, not seeming to care about the consequences or consistency of the rhetoric they espouse. As conservatives, they also have power already on their side. The rhetorical concept of burden of proof suggests that in a debate the burden of proof lies with the party trying to challenge what is already assumed. Those arguing from what is already assumed enjoy the privilege of resting on that assumption until it is challenged enough to be questioned or overturned. Conservatism, by definition, has this power of assumption, and conservatives today quite readily use it, even when the things they say are ultimately inconsistent and incoherent.

Meanwhile, when Democrats get power or get good opportunities to use power, they screw it up over and over again. While freely admitting that this is tied to my own ideological leanings, I tend to think that the left has better ideas. No one's ideas are perfect, but when weighed rationally and with nuance, I think generally the left's arguments tend to have more depth. Indeed, that's actually something Republicans play up, though in a different way, with anti-intellectual rhetoric about leftist elites. In other words, pointing out logical inconsistencies and articulating nuanced positions become devalued, as if doing these things constitutes a problematic view of the world and a means of oppressing other people. Notice, though, that I say "the left," not "Democrats" when I mention these ideas. Two reasons account for this. One is that I think that for the most part the Democratic party in this country isn't really on the left politically. The second is that many of the Democrats I hear don't really go about making arguments for good ideas or don't go about doing it effectively, so I can't group them here. In other words, they're dumbasses.

Making fun of Sarah Palin seems like another instance in which Democrats and others reinforce that assessment. And, ultimately, I think it plays right into the hands of the likes of Sarah Palin and her supporters. Picking on instances like this provides fuel for Palin to continue to identify herself as a victim of the left and of the "lamestream" media, as she likes to call it. (And, by the way, I would argue that the media does have a liberal bias, as so many claim, but I would add the caveat that it's a liberal bias within what is already a conservative frame, which makes it essentially a moderately conservative bias.) Palin does have a long pattern of consistent inability to articulate herself that suggests a lack of competence. Maybe in some way using the word "refudiate" reflects that, but it's such an easy, everyday kind of blunder to make that I don't think it's a big deal, and I don't think a big deal should be made of it. There are plenty of much more potent examples to use to show Palin's apparent lack of competence that the argument does not need examples like this to make that case. To do so seems like it aids the narrative that she (along with her political advisors) has constructed for herself, and it allows her and her supporters to shift attention from the actual content of her statement, which I think is very problematic and the much more important issue here, to her image as victim of the media and the left.

Palin may be incompetent when it comes to solutions and complex explanations of contemporary social, political, and economic issues. She may be becoming more competent as she is learning more about those issues. She appears to be relatively competent at promotion and public relations, recognizing an audience to which she appeals and finding a way to keep appealing to it. Certainly, both of these types of competence play roles in contemporary U.S. politics. I think, though, engaging more with the ideas she promotes as much as possible would be the much more effective and much more humane path for the left. Perhaps, though, that's the problem with the contemporary left. In Ancient Rome, Cicero called rhetoric the combination of eloquence and wisdom. Perhaps the left needs to learn how to focus more fully on consistently stating any wisdom it has in more eloquent terms to make their statements more impenetrable from the anti-intellectual attacks of the right. Petty squabbling over use of the pseudo-word "refudiate" seems anything but this. Indeed, it makes one look like many Democrats look of late (i.e., like a "dumbass") or look like an elitist who engages in attacks on other people's lack of cultural capital as a means of humoring herself/himself (i.e., like a smartass). And whether it's Palin levelling it against Muslims or her detractors levelling it against her, I'm tired of all of the crap.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Independence Day: For You and Me, Not Just Some of Us

“Ain’t that America, you and me …”

John Mellencamp, “Pink Houses”


When I attended spring graduation at Bowling Green State University, I was a little disturbed by the extra rounds of applause given to individuals whose military ranks were stated along with their names as they accepted their diplomas (well, the diploma carriers that would later hold their diplomas, anyway …). I did not join the audience in a round of applause that these students received while others did not. Now, despite what the likes of CNN contributor Ed Rollins (I believe very wrongly) suggests about academics simply not liking the military, I did not do this out of dislike for the military. I’m not a fan of violence, but I understand the usefulness for military, and I am quite happy to support the military in that regard. Rather, given that this was not a military ceremony, I did not believe military members should receive extra recognition. To do so, to me, seems to suggest that they’re more important than everyone else. And, frankly, I don’t think that’s true, and I do think that’s a dangerous way to think.

Now, I understand the idea that the military deserve recognition because they put their lives on the line so much more than other people. … At least I understand where that idea comes from. For some members of the military, yes, their jobs do demand this. However, there are two problems with this. While some are, many military are not really in direct danger of losing their lives on a daily basis. Additionally, this situation is not exclusive to the military. Many individuals throughout United States society put their lives in danger in their jobs, and I’m not just talking about firefighters and police officers. Electrical workers, individuals who work with nuclear and chemical waste, biologists who expose themselves to potentially life-threatening diseases and insects as they do research, and many other individuals risk their lives to do their jobs. Furthermore, individuals who have to work despite health conditions because they need the money to support themselves or they need to keep working to maintain health insurance risk the worsening of their conditions—and, thus, risk their lives—everyday. Many people also work additional jobs, take less vacation, and do other things that might lead to health conditions because they need to make ends meet. These people, too, are risking their health and their lives. So, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that the military risk their lives like no one else does and that they therefore should be celebrated more than other people.

Now, this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t celebrate military members. We have days that we set aside for recognition of military—like Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Additionally, there are military ceremonies produced by military organizations that commemorate military accomplishments. At my mother’s funeral, the military gave a touching salute in commemoration of my mother, as she was a veteran. These are fine times to commemorate what members of the military do. However, that does not mean that commemoration of the military should be associated with everything. I do not think that college graduations are a time to advance military accomplishments above other accomplishments. I do not think that sporting events should be the place to use the military consistently and repeatedly as the means of showing national identity over other means of doing so. I do not think that military expenditures should be virtually ignored in discussions of the need to corral government spending. And I do not believe that the Fourth of July should be a military commemoration.

Does this mean that the military cannot participate in Fourth of July events or other events throughout the year? Absolutely not. By all means, let individuals who identify with the military contribute as such to these events. But these do not seem to be appropriate times to characterize military accomplishments over other kinds of contributions that the many of us give to United States society every day. While the Revolution that began the United States of America certainly had its military components, these did not work alone to produce this nation and the ideals of liberty and equality that the founders of this nation articulated, though they had not yet perfected and we have not yet perfected. These are the ideals that lay at the heart of our continuing mission as a society—the goals toward which we work that provide this country with the potential that makes it worth one’s commitment. And they are the ideals that we celebrate and seek to voice our continuing commitment toward on the Fourth of July. They are, though, as John Mellencamp sang in “Pink Houses,” ideals about “you and me.” We’re all in this together, and to suggest that a select number of us offer more important contributions than the rest of us is not just wrong, it runs counter to those founding ideals. In a word, it’s unpatriotic. If we suggest that academics offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a system of elite aristocracy run by intelligentsia leaders. If we suggest that individuals who own and run businesses offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a different kind of elite aristocracy, this one run by the wealthy and economically powerful. If we suggest that people of a certain religion offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a theocracy. And if we suggest that the military offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a military state. And all of these end results run counter to a democratic society.

The point is that so many of us contribute in so many different ways, and the ideals of democracy would ask us on this, the day to celebrate such ideals, to make sure that we commemorate that diversity, privileging none above the others, none at exclusion to the rest.