LOOKING FOR A SON OF A BITCH
We now seem to have a clear strategy for getting out of Afghanistan.
The Greek philosopher Diogenes was once asked why he walked around in daylight with a lantern. He answered, "I am just looking for an honest man." It is obvious that we are not going to find such a man in Afghanistan to lead that country out of its long history of warfare among warlords and its recent experience with repressive rule by the Taliban.
So if a Diogenes optimization strategy is dead, suboptimizing appears to be the only way out.
When President Franklin Roosevelt was asked about our relationship with one time Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, he replied, "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." Having shed the illusion that a nation building strategy could bring unity and democracy to Afghanistan, we are now in search of whatever "son of a bitch" or "sons of bitches" we can find to help us tunnel a way out of the Afghan dilemma.
We thought Hamid Karzai was our Afghan Somoza but he has strayed from the reservation enough times on important military, political, and corruption issues to create uncertainty about whether he is reliably "ours". And Karzai's control is confined to only a portion of the country.
There have been reports for some time that we have been looking, overtly or covertly, for a segment of the Taliban that is also anti-al-Qaida and bring that element of the Taliban into some kind of meaningful discussions about participating in governing the country. But we are also caught in something of a struggle between Afghanistan and Pakistan over who should take the lead in enticing the Taliban into serious negotiations, and then resolve the problem of the shape of the negotiating table (shades of the Vietnam negotiations in the early 70s) so it would include the United States.
David Ignatius in today's column (July 29), quoted national security advisor General James Jones as saying, "The Taliban generally as a group has never signed on to the global jihad business and doesn't seem to have ambitions beyond its region." Thus the anointment of one son of a bitch. Getting the Taliban to the properly shaped table would indeed help President Obama to meet his commitment of beginning troop withdrawal next summer.
But the search for a son of a bitch goes further in the suboptimizing strategy, according to today's Washington Post. The Post reports that we have aligned ourselves with Haji Ghani who is described as a "hashish-growing former warlord" with a semiofficial police force "who is known to show his anger through beatings". In short, forget the search for an honest man, we will settle for any local strongmen who can maintain order in otherwise bad neighborhoods.
Once we get beyond the media frenzy and Admistration concerns about what's in the WikiLeaks papers and what damage they can do to our national security, we can return to the the central issue of Afghanistan. That is, how to extricate ourselves by embracing whatever sons of bitches we can call ours.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Catching up with the News
CATCHING UP WITH THE NEWS
Cosmo, as a retired political science professor and a novice blogger, I thought it sufficient to use blogging as a teaching device. My progress on the learning curve has now made it clear that you can't ignore what's happening on the front page of the newspaper.
So, playing catchup ball on recent headlines, it seemed that something needed to be said on the Shirley Sherrod and Afghan Papers stories. And the most economical thing to do is to merge both into a single, seamless blog.
First, the most redeeming feature of the WikiLeaks stories is that they drove the Sherrod episode off the front page. Once given the full context of her remarks, it was a great story about the small ways in which people learned to exorcise their own personal forms of racism. But the ugly part of the story was that it also featured and exposed once more how easily the media can be manipulated. And while the out-of-context story was launched initially by right wing Fox News, the rest of the media quickly adopted the Fox version to make sure they were not left behind in the electronic news cycle.
But the story also took us into the Jonestown world of right wing talk radio where hosts such as Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh asked their listeners to believe that the whole episode had been orchestrated by the White House to discredit Fox News.
Now fade to the Afghan Papers.
As a preemptive strike (all tongue in cheek, of course) on right wing talk shows hosts, I would like to advance the theory that the leak of these papers is a deep, subterranean plot by the White House to build up anti-war sentiment and thus empower President Obama to stand by his commitment to begin our exodus from Afghanistan next summer. This argument is given substance by the fact, at least so far, that the papers released came out of the time of the previous Bush administration and thus lets this White House off the hook for the events and mind sets found in the leaked papers. Now, if it hasn't happened already, we can expect Beck, Limbaugh, and Savage to adopt this line of reasoning. If their arguments go in that direction, it will then be a contest of who says it first with the most embellishments. Beck and Savage presented their manipulation theory on the Sherrod case on July 21. Not to be outflanked by his right wing bretheren, Limbaugh made his case the next day. (The struggle among talk show hosts of who speaks most extremely for the right is a stay-tuned saga.)
But when the Afghan Papers leave the front page, what will come next? Perhaps Limbaugh, Savage, or Beck will accuse the White House of having manipulated the creation of the Mayan calender predicting the end of the world in 2012--if Obama is not re-elected.
Cosmo, as a retired political science professor and a novice blogger, I thought it sufficient to use blogging as a teaching device. My progress on the learning curve has now made it clear that you can't ignore what's happening on the front page of the newspaper.
So, playing catchup ball on recent headlines, it seemed that something needed to be said on the Shirley Sherrod and Afghan Papers stories. And the most economical thing to do is to merge both into a single, seamless blog.
First, the most redeeming feature of the WikiLeaks stories is that they drove the Sherrod episode off the front page. Once given the full context of her remarks, it was a great story about the small ways in which people learned to exorcise their own personal forms of racism. But the ugly part of the story was that it also featured and exposed once more how easily the media can be manipulated. And while the out-of-context story was launched initially by right wing Fox News, the rest of the media quickly adopted the Fox version to make sure they were not left behind in the electronic news cycle.
But the story also took us into the Jonestown world of right wing talk radio where hosts such as Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh asked their listeners to believe that the whole episode had been orchestrated by the White House to discredit Fox News.
Now fade to the Afghan Papers.
As a preemptive strike (all tongue in cheek, of course) on right wing talk shows hosts, I would like to advance the theory that the leak of these papers is a deep, subterranean plot by the White House to build up anti-war sentiment and thus empower President Obama to stand by his commitment to begin our exodus from Afghanistan next summer. This argument is given substance by the fact, at least so far, that the papers released came out of the time of the previous Bush administration and thus lets this White House off the hook for the events and mind sets found in the leaked papers. Now, if it hasn't happened already, we can expect Beck, Limbaugh, and Savage to adopt this line of reasoning. If their arguments go in that direction, it will then be a contest of who says it first with the most embellishments. Beck and Savage presented their manipulation theory on the Sherrod case on July 21. Not to be outflanked by his right wing bretheren, Limbaugh made his case the next day. (The struggle among talk show hosts of who speaks most extremely for the right is a stay-tuned saga.)
But when the Afghan Papers leave the front page, what will come next? Perhaps Limbaugh, Savage, or Beck will accuse the White House of having manipulated the creation of the Mayan calender predicting the end of the world in 2012--if Obama is not re-elected.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Charley, if You Could Hear It Now: Immigration
CHARLEY, IF YOU COULD HEAR IT NOW: Immigration
This blog site had it beginnings with a re-reading of Nobel Prize winner John Steinbeck's TRAVELS WITH CHARLEY. In l960, Steinbeck and CHARLEY, his French poodle, made a three month trip around the United States to rediscover the country which he had been writing about, but a country with which he said he had lost touch. In the course of his journey he wrote about many of his observations which as I said in a previous blog ranged from advances in mobile homes, to tree hugging on the west coast, to witnessing an ugly racial demonstration in New Orleans. This posting reflects how the immigration issue has morphed over the half century since Steinbeck and Charley made their journey.
From "Canucks" to "secure the borders"
One of Steinbeck's early destinations was Aroostook County, Maine. He had heard about its potatoes but said that he had never met anyone who had actually been there. For his trip he had a specially designed pickup truck with a slide-in camper, giving the rig the name "Rocinante" after Don Quixote's horse.
When he arrived in northernmost Maine, he was in new geographic territory but within a familiar personal context--migrant farm labor. His early years living in California and his writings were sympathetically built around such workers, whether field hands from Mexico or "Okies" fleeing the l930s drought of the American great plains.
The highlight of his Aroostook visit was an evening with a group of "Canucks" he crowded into "Rocinante" for beer, brandy, and soda pop. It was evident that he liked both the people and the gathering, using such terms as a "hardy people," "nice looking people," "very nice people but formal". He even lauded the smell of their soup. In the course of their conversation, Steinbeck asked about any trouble with immigration people at the border, concluding that the formal rules of entry "seemed to relax during the harvest season." In his final appraisal of the visit he said, "Rocinante took on a glow it never quite lost." ". . . I never saw them again. But I like them."
It was an experience he could not repeat today. Potato harvesting in Aroostook County has since transitioned from French Canadians, to local kids hired during the school harvest break, to mechanization. The few French Canadians still coming to the area are mostly found harvesting trees, and his limited French language ability would would have to be changed to Spanish. Today the primary source of field workers are Hispanics who enter Maine from the south and follow crop harvesting northward from blueberries to broccoli to potatoes.
But more significant than these changes affecting that corner of the country is the larger, highly controversial issue of illegal immigration which has become a major flash point in our body politic. Such controversy is not new, but it has taken on a new virulence since 9/11 and subsequent efforts to overhaul immigration policy to deal with an estimated 12 million illegal persons living in the country, primarily Hispanics from Mexico and Central America.
The issue currently has its ground zero in Arizona with its law, being challenged by the federal government, to cut off illegal immigration into that state.
Immigration policy and controversy have a long history beginning with the writing of the Constitution and its provisions for the importation of slaves. Soon after the Constitution was in effect a law was enacted in 1790 to restrict naturalization to free white persons of good moral character. With an influx of Catholics from Germany and Ireland in the mid-19th century the focus was on ways to halt the immigration which was seen as hostile to the country's Protestant social and cultural values. Out of this concern came the Know Nothing Movement, given that name because when asked about activities of the semi-secret organization, members would say they "know nothing". That movement evolved into the American Party which disintegrated over the pro- and anti-slavery conflict, but the nativist issues it raised did not disappear.
With the next great wave of immigration from southern and eastern Europe (Jews, Italians, Poles, and Slavs) later in the 1800s and into the 1900s, along with anti-Asian feelings, the nativist concern re-emerged and ultimately found its way into law in the l920s with passage of national-origins based immigration. The policy discriminated against the entry of those perceived as undesirable--southern and eastern Europeans. This was the general background on immigration policy that existed when Steinbeck set out in l960.
It wasn't until five years later, in l965, that the discrimination of the 40-year old national origins quotas was ended and immigration policy was based on a more neutral policy of family relationships that gave preference to immigrants sponsored by families already living here. The next big step came in l986, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan when policy was enacted which gave about three million illegal immigrants amnesty to remain here.
Then came 9/11 and a greatly heightened concern about protecting the borders against infiltration by terrorists, a concern which has now merged with the issue of illegal immigration involving, by some estimates, 12 million persons, primarily Hispanics. This clash erupted in the period 2005-2008 when one side sought to change immigration policy to lay out a path for the illegal immigrants to eventually gain citizenship. Generally, such changes were advocated by liberal Democrats with the support of President George W. Bush and some Republican lawmakers representing areas impacted with Hispanic residents, voting and nonvoting.
Opposed, and again generally, were primarily conservative Republican lawmakers backed by diverse outside groups who focused on enforcement of current deportation laws and used anti-amnesty rhetoric as the rallying cry. The issue gained new life through the political unrest generated by the Tea Party movement which sprang forth in 2009, espousing that a far right ideology be imposed on a basket of some traditional conservative issues including a nativist-based immigration policy.
Then came the Arizona law this year and put the issue at or near the top of the national agenda. And, as shown by that law and President Obama's renewed interest in immigration reform, some former advocates of reform have now become outspoken opponents, the best example being Senator John McCain of Arizona who is being challenged in his party's primary election by a former Congressman who is aggressively courting far right activists and adherents.
Soon after leaving Maine, Steinbeck sought to enter Canada as a shortcut westward but was advised at the entry port that he could enter Canada but would not be able to re-enter the United States because he did not have a rabies vaccination certificate for Charley. Today, dog or no dog, border crossing is more complex, reflecting how 9/11 and terrorism have become intertwined with immigration policy. In l960, one could enter Canada and return with just an oral declaration of U.S. citizenship. Now re-entry to the United States requires a passport or some other acceptable photo credential. And what was once heralded as the world's longest unprotected border is now partially patrolled by unarmed predator aircraft.
Thus, over the 50 years since Steinbeck traveled with Charley, immigration has evolved from a low key economic and fairness issue to a highly charged "to the barricades" ideological controversy about the country's economic, social, and cultural future. Add to this the issue of border protection against terrorists and Steinbeck's l960 experiences with the "Canucks" and his frustrated effort to enter Canada seem pleasantly nostalgic. Immigration policy has now become a poisonous political issue. Charley, if you could hear it now.
This blog site had it beginnings with a re-reading of Nobel Prize winner John Steinbeck's TRAVELS WITH CHARLEY. In l960, Steinbeck and CHARLEY, his French poodle, made a three month trip around the United States to rediscover the country which he had been writing about, but a country with which he said he had lost touch. In the course of his journey he wrote about many of his observations which as I said in a previous blog ranged from advances in mobile homes, to tree hugging on the west coast, to witnessing an ugly racial demonstration in New Orleans. This posting reflects how the immigration issue has morphed over the half century since Steinbeck and Charley made their journey.
From "Canucks" to "secure the borders"
One of Steinbeck's early destinations was Aroostook County, Maine. He had heard about its potatoes but said that he had never met anyone who had actually been there. For his trip he had a specially designed pickup truck with a slide-in camper, giving the rig the name "Rocinante" after Don Quixote's horse.
When he arrived in northernmost Maine, he was in new geographic territory but within a familiar personal context--migrant farm labor. His early years living in California and his writings were sympathetically built around such workers, whether field hands from Mexico or "Okies" fleeing the l930s drought of the American great plains.
The highlight of his Aroostook visit was an evening with a group of "Canucks" he crowded into "Rocinante" for beer, brandy, and soda pop. It was evident that he liked both the people and the gathering, using such terms as a "hardy people," "nice looking people," "very nice people but formal". He even lauded the smell of their soup. In the course of their conversation, Steinbeck asked about any trouble with immigration people at the border, concluding that the formal rules of entry "seemed to relax during the harvest season." In his final appraisal of the visit he said, "Rocinante took on a glow it never quite lost." ". . . I never saw them again. But I like them."
It was an experience he could not repeat today. Potato harvesting in Aroostook County has since transitioned from French Canadians, to local kids hired during the school harvest break, to mechanization. The few French Canadians still coming to the area are mostly found harvesting trees, and his limited French language ability would would have to be changed to Spanish. Today the primary source of field workers are Hispanics who enter Maine from the south and follow crop harvesting northward from blueberries to broccoli to potatoes.
But more significant than these changes affecting that corner of the country is the larger, highly controversial issue of illegal immigration which has become a major flash point in our body politic. Such controversy is not new, but it has taken on a new virulence since 9/11 and subsequent efforts to overhaul immigration policy to deal with an estimated 12 million illegal persons living in the country, primarily Hispanics from Mexico and Central America.
The issue currently has its ground zero in Arizona with its law, being challenged by the federal government, to cut off illegal immigration into that state.
Immigration policy and controversy have a long history beginning with the writing of the Constitution and its provisions for the importation of slaves. Soon after the Constitution was in effect a law was enacted in 1790 to restrict naturalization to free white persons of good moral character. With an influx of Catholics from Germany and Ireland in the mid-19th century the focus was on ways to halt the immigration which was seen as hostile to the country's Protestant social and cultural values. Out of this concern came the Know Nothing Movement, given that name because when asked about activities of the semi-secret organization, members would say they "know nothing". That movement evolved into the American Party which disintegrated over the pro- and anti-slavery conflict, but the nativist issues it raised did not disappear.
With the next great wave of immigration from southern and eastern Europe (Jews, Italians, Poles, and Slavs) later in the 1800s and into the 1900s, along with anti-Asian feelings, the nativist concern re-emerged and ultimately found its way into law in the l920s with passage of national-origins based immigration. The policy discriminated against the entry of those perceived as undesirable--southern and eastern Europeans. This was the general background on immigration policy that existed when Steinbeck set out in l960.
It wasn't until five years later, in l965, that the discrimination of the 40-year old national origins quotas was ended and immigration policy was based on a more neutral policy of family relationships that gave preference to immigrants sponsored by families already living here. The next big step came in l986, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan when policy was enacted which gave about three million illegal immigrants amnesty to remain here.
Then came 9/11 and a greatly heightened concern about protecting the borders against infiltration by terrorists, a concern which has now merged with the issue of illegal immigration involving, by some estimates, 12 million persons, primarily Hispanics. This clash erupted in the period 2005-2008 when one side sought to change immigration policy to lay out a path for the illegal immigrants to eventually gain citizenship. Generally, such changes were advocated by liberal Democrats with the support of President George W. Bush and some Republican lawmakers representing areas impacted with Hispanic residents, voting and nonvoting.
Opposed, and again generally, were primarily conservative Republican lawmakers backed by diverse outside groups who focused on enforcement of current deportation laws and used anti-amnesty rhetoric as the rallying cry. The issue gained new life through the political unrest generated by the Tea Party movement which sprang forth in 2009, espousing that a far right ideology be imposed on a basket of some traditional conservative issues including a nativist-based immigration policy.
Then came the Arizona law this year and put the issue at or near the top of the national agenda. And, as shown by that law and President Obama's renewed interest in immigration reform, some former advocates of reform have now become outspoken opponents, the best example being Senator John McCain of Arizona who is being challenged in his party's primary election by a former Congressman who is aggressively courting far right activists and adherents.
Soon after leaving Maine, Steinbeck sought to enter Canada as a shortcut westward but was advised at the entry port that he could enter Canada but would not be able to re-enter the United States because he did not have a rabies vaccination certificate for Charley. Today, dog or no dog, border crossing is more complex, reflecting how 9/11 and terrorism have become intertwined with immigration policy. In l960, one could enter Canada and return with just an oral declaration of U.S. citizenship. Now re-entry to the United States requires a passport or some other acceptable photo credential. And what was once heralded as the world's longest unprotected border is now partially patrolled by unarmed predator aircraft.
Thus, over the 50 years since Steinbeck traveled with Charley, immigration has evolved from a low key economic and fairness issue to a highly charged "to the barricades" ideological controversy about the country's economic, social, and cultural future. Add to this the issue of border protection against terrorists and Steinbeck's l960 experiences with the "Canucks" and his frustrated effort to enter Canada seem pleasantly nostalgic. Immigration policy has now become a poisonous political issue. Charley, if you could hear it now.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Problems and Solutions
MAKING A MESS OF THINGS
Today's (July 19) Washington Post carried an insightful column by foreign affairs analyst Fareed Zakaria.
In a discussion of failed states and the U.S. views of and approach to such states, Zakaria says the following:
"Somalia highlights the complexity of almost every approach to failed states. If Washington goes after the militants aggressively, it polarizes the political landscape and energizes the radicals, who can then claim to be nationalists fighting American imperialism. If it talks to them, it is accused of empowering jihadis. The real answer, many argue, is to strengthen the state's capacity so that the government has greater legitimacy and the opposition gets discredited. But how easy is to fast-forward political modernization, compressing into a few years what has taken decades, if not centuries in the West."
He then goes on to quote Bronwyn Bruton of the Council on Foreign Relations, who said, "We have a limited capacity to influence events in Somalia, to influence them positively. . . . But we have an almost unlimited capacity to make a mess of things."
In short, they give contemporary evidence to something said by, I think, a British economist many years ago. He said (perhaps not an exact quote) that "the existence of a problem does not presume the existence of a solution."
This is a particularly difficult truth for Americans, and others in the western world, to accept. We are given to believe that the existence of a problem presumes the existence of a solution we can engineer. Whether it be solving the reception of calls on an iPhone 4 (get a new case), capping a polluting oil well (try, try again), or by implanting democracy in an inhospitable part of the world where there has never been a democracy, or even a modicum of one--Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind--we can militarily and politically engineer a solution.
The George W. Bush administration advanced that belief as part of the rewards to be achieved by invading Iraq. Plant a democracy in the heart of the Muslim Mideast and it will flower and spread to the neighborhood (Israel excluded). Watching the Iraqis cope with their democratic political architecture has not been encouraging. And their stalemated system exists with our troops still in place. It is difficult to believe that centuries old sectarian violence will not erupt again after our departure, much less believe its "democratic" forms will be ready for export to the neighbors.
Likewise in Afghanistan. If we can't push or even nudge President Hamid Karzai into doing what is right politically, or to crack down on corruption, it is almost predestined that the country will return to the status quo ante after the western troops have left. Once again Afghanistan will become a geographic area run by warlords, living off of expanded opium trade, and renewing their internecine warfare while eradicating any remaining traces of American and NATO influence.
In short, there are plenty of problems out there, among which are failed states. But we should NOT presume the existence of what we think of as a solution to all of these problems. Certainly not a solution crafted to encompass the traditional western values, or we will indeed "make a mess of things."
Today's (July 19) Washington Post carried an insightful column by foreign affairs analyst Fareed Zakaria.
In a discussion of failed states and the U.S. views of and approach to such states, Zakaria says the following:
"Somalia highlights the complexity of almost every approach to failed states. If Washington goes after the militants aggressively, it polarizes the political landscape and energizes the radicals, who can then claim to be nationalists fighting American imperialism. If it talks to them, it is accused of empowering jihadis. The real answer, many argue, is to strengthen the state's capacity so that the government has greater legitimacy and the opposition gets discredited. But how easy is to fast-forward political modernization, compressing into a few years what has taken decades, if not centuries in the West."
He then goes on to quote Bronwyn Bruton of the Council on Foreign Relations, who said, "We have a limited capacity to influence events in Somalia, to influence them positively. . . . But we have an almost unlimited capacity to make a mess of things."
In short, they give contemporary evidence to something said by, I think, a British economist many years ago. He said (perhaps not an exact quote) that "the existence of a problem does not presume the existence of a solution."
This is a particularly difficult truth for Americans, and others in the western world, to accept. We are given to believe that the existence of a problem presumes the existence of a solution we can engineer. Whether it be solving the reception of calls on an iPhone 4 (get a new case), capping a polluting oil well (try, try again), or by implanting democracy in an inhospitable part of the world where there has never been a democracy, or even a modicum of one--Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind--we can militarily and politically engineer a solution.
The George W. Bush administration advanced that belief as part of the rewards to be achieved by invading Iraq. Plant a democracy in the heart of the Muslim Mideast and it will flower and spread to the neighborhood (Israel excluded). Watching the Iraqis cope with their democratic political architecture has not been encouraging. And their stalemated system exists with our troops still in place. It is difficult to believe that centuries old sectarian violence will not erupt again after our departure, much less believe its "democratic" forms will be ready for export to the neighbors.
Likewise in Afghanistan. If we can't push or even nudge President Hamid Karzai into doing what is right politically, or to crack down on corruption, it is almost predestined that the country will return to the status quo ante after the western troops have left. Once again Afghanistan will become a geographic area run by warlords, living off of expanded opium trade, and renewing their internecine warfare while eradicating any remaining traces of American and NATO influence.
In short, there are plenty of problems out there, among which are failed states. But we should NOT presume the existence of what we think of as a solution to all of these problems. Certainly not a solution crafted to encompass the traditional western values, or we will indeed "make a mess of things."
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Charley, if you could hear it now: racism
CHARLEY, IF YOU COULD HEAR IT NOW: RACISM
From Ruby Bridges to Barack Obama
The recent shootout between the NAACP and Tea Party adherents reminds us once again that the issue of racism is "alive and well" in America. Tea Party advocates were offended that the NAACP accused them of racism, but it should be noted that it was at a Washington rally in March against health care reform where shouts of "nigger" were heard from Tea Party activists as some black lawmakers were entering the Capitol building.
While the NAACP-Tea Party shootout is the latest racism episode, it is certainly not an isolated event. How many times have we heard Rush Limbaugh use his radio talk show to deliver high decibel racial remarks? The latest came on the death of New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner whom he described as a "cracker (who) made a lot of African-American millionaires". And not long before that he charged President Obama with trying to wreck the American economy as his revenge for over two centuries of racial oppression.
As disturbing as the return of racism to the headlines may be to many, it does not have the same violence as 50 years ago when Nobel Prize winning author John Steinbeck, accompanied by his French poodle Charley, made a three month journey around the country to refresh his memory of the America he had been writing about but an America with which he said he had lost touch.
His 1960 journey of personal rediscovery led to his best selling book TRAVELS WITH CHARLEY in which he made many observations about many things. They ranged from the great advances in mobile homes, to a tree hugging experience with west coast redwoods, to witnessing a very ugly demonstration in New Orleans where whites were protesting the integration of an elementary school. Flashback fifty years to that visit.
While traveling in Texas Steinbeck read about and saw on television reports of violent demonstrations against racial integration of an elementary school in New Orleans. He particularly noticed stories about a group of white "middle-aged women who by some curious definition of the word 'mother' gathered every day to scream invectives at children." A small group of them were so expert they were known as "Cheerleaders." He said the stories seemed so improbable that he had to see for himself.
His drive into New Orleans, the last major stop of his travels, came at the beginning of a revolutionary change in the country's race relations, heralded in the person of Rosa Parks who refused to sit in the back of a bus, and the black sit-ins at white lunch counters. Things were more intense when it came to desegregation of public school systems in the south. An early hint of the intensity of feelings on that issue came in l957, just three years after the Supreme Court ruling against school segregation, when President Eisenhower sent troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, to integrate Central High School.
Knowing he was entering a very hostile situation in New Orleans, Steinbeck took the precaution of disguising himself as a British merchant seaman, complete with accent, and parking his camper with its New York license plate a good distance from the street demonstration. He did not have to wait to get to the school before experiencing the bitterness surrounding the issue.
Beginning with the parking lot where he left his camper, the depth of the bigotry was evident with the lot attendant. When he came up to Steinbeck's truck he looked at Charley and said, "Man, oh man, I thought you had a nigger in there. I see that big old black face and I think it's a big old black nigger." Next came the cab driver taking him to the school asking, "Where you from?" Assuming his seaman's role, Steinbeck replied, "Liverpool," which made things okay with the driver. A bit later came the following exchange:
Driver: Why I like niggers. And them Goddamn New York Jews come in and stir the niggers up. They just stay in New York and their wouldn't be no trouble.
Ought to take them out.
Steinbeck: You mean lynch them?
Driver: I don't mean nothing else, mister.
(Just four years later in l964 three young civil rights workers, including two Jewish students from New York were murdered in Mississippi. Seven men were eventually sent to jail and 40 years later the case was reopened and another trial was held in 2005 when an eighth person, a white minister, was convicted of manslaughter.)
When Steinbeck arrived at the William Frantz Elementary School he saw a crowd assembled behind police barricades. At the front were the Cheerleaders. The targets were Ruby Bridges, a six-year old black girl who was integrating the school, and the U.S. Marshals escorting her to enforce the integration. (At this point it wasn't really integration since all of the white kids were taken out of the school by their parents.)
"Perhaps that is what made me sick with weary nausea. Here was no principle
good or bad, no direction. These blowzy women with their little hats and their
(newspaper) clippings hungered for attention. They were not mothers, not even
women. They were crazy actors playing to a crazy audience."
Over the next few days he talked with several people with diverse views on the issue. One was an old white southerner sympathetic to the black problem but deeply concerned about the future and how hard it would be for those on both sides of the issue to change their views. Next was an old black hitchhiker who was very wary of discussing the issue with a white stranger. Then came a white racist who hitched a ride but was told to get out when the discussion became too heated; he kept shouting "nigger lover" as Steinbeck drove off. And finally a young black student hitchhiker who was tired of the slow progress being made toward racial equality. "The gains are a drop of water and time is passing. I want it faster, I want action--action now."
The "now" began four years later with passage of the Civil Rights Act of l964, followed a year later with the Voting Rights Act of l965. But in the mid-l960s we also had the beginning of urban riots in northern and western cities such as Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, and Los Angeles. The two civil rights acts revolutionized the life and political clout of southern blacks, but did virtually nothing to deal with the de facto segregation and problems of poverty and job and housing discrimination faced by blacks outside the south.. The urban riots culminated in the spring of l968 with numerous outbreaks, primarily in northern cities, following the assassination of Martin Luther King. Thus, what seemed to be clearly defined problems of state and local de jure segregation and discrimination in the south in the early 60s expanded to become bread and butter issues outside the south. This led to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program focused on ending job and housing discrimination plus other ground breaking legislation in education and health care, and an umbrella anti-poverty program that dealt with problems such as pre-school education, a lack of social services, and legal representation for the poor.
Now fast forward 50 years for a look at New Orleans and the broader picture of racial progress in the country. The fault line of his conversations and observations was school desegregation. Today the fault line is Hurricane Katrina.
On August 29, 2005, a devastating hurricane hit New Orleans and a long stretch of the Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama coastline, causing widespread destruction and the dislocation of hundreds of thousands of residents and businesses. In New Orleans itself, tens of thousands of people evacuated the city before the storm and fled inland to safety, while many thousands more remained behind and had to be rescued from rooftops and seek shelter in refugee centers. And thousands more relocated to other Louisiana cities and other states and never returned.
Today Steinbeck would find that the hurricane resurrected the racial issue in New Orleans which had gone from one-third to two-third black and had elected three black mayors over the 50 years since he had been there. In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane there were charges coming out of the black community that federal help was slow in coming because the bulk of the victims were poor and black. There is also a belief that race was a big factor both in the rescue efforts and subsequent rebuilding of the neighborhoods. Some blacks also believe that just after Katrina had passed and the sun was shining, there was an explosion and the levee was blown up to allow water to rush in and level part of the 9th ward where neighborhood destruction and the loss of black population were the greatest.
Thus, white bitterness about school desegregation in l960, has been replaced by bitterness within a shrunken black population about what they see as whites using Hurricane Katrina as a way to permanently drive blacks from the city and restore white control. Since Katrina there are more white members on the city council and school board and a white mayor was elected in 2009 to replace a black mayor who had served the two terms permitted. But the changes have occurred within a context radically altered by a half century of civil rights laws accompanied by changes in the political and social culture of the city and the region as whites seeking election must now take into account the views and seek the support of their black voters.
Nationally, the combined effect of the 50 years of progress in race relations culminated in 2008 with the election of the first black President, Barack Obama. It would be comforting to think that Obama's election signified the end of race as a major issue in the country, but, alas, such does not seem to be the case. Race has now become a renewed, often whispered but sometimes spoken aloud issue in our body politic, as shown by various depictions of President Obama on posters, the June Tea Party rally with its racial epithets, and the frequent occasions when Rush Limbaugh comes up with his racial interpretations on current events. (If one is puzzled by the far reach of Limbaugh's views, perhaps it is because he fears he will be outflanked on the right by the outer fringe pronouncements of Glenn Beck.)
In any case, this new bigotry stems in large part from the re-emergence among some segments of the population of older attitudes about blacks and their "appropriate place" in the national life. To many, the first black President should be a one-term President--because he is black. So, Charley, while the high decibel virulence and violence of the racial issue has toned down, the issue of racism itself has gained a new lease on life.
From Ruby Bridges to Barack Obama
The recent shootout between the NAACP and Tea Party adherents reminds us once again that the issue of racism is "alive and well" in America. Tea Party advocates were offended that the NAACP accused them of racism, but it should be noted that it was at a Washington rally in March against health care reform where shouts of "nigger" were heard from Tea Party activists as some black lawmakers were entering the Capitol building.
While the NAACP-Tea Party shootout is the latest racism episode, it is certainly not an isolated event. How many times have we heard Rush Limbaugh use his radio talk show to deliver high decibel racial remarks? The latest came on the death of New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner whom he described as a "cracker (who) made a lot of African-American millionaires". And not long before that he charged President Obama with trying to wreck the American economy as his revenge for over two centuries of racial oppression.
As disturbing as the return of racism to the headlines may be to many, it does not have the same violence as 50 years ago when Nobel Prize winning author John Steinbeck, accompanied by his French poodle Charley, made a three month journey around the country to refresh his memory of the America he had been writing about but an America with which he said he had lost touch.
His 1960 journey of personal rediscovery led to his best selling book TRAVELS WITH CHARLEY in which he made many observations about many things. They ranged from the great advances in mobile homes, to a tree hugging experience with west coast redwoods, to witnessing a very ugly demonstration in New Orleans where whites were protesting the integration of an elementary school. Flashback fifty years to that visit.
While traveling in Texas Steinbeck read about and saw on television reports of violent demonstrations against racial integration of an elementary school in New Orleans. He particularly noticed stories about a group of white "middle-aged women who by some curious definition of the word 'mother' gathered every day to scream invectives at children." A small group of them were so expert they were known as "Cheerleaders." He said the stories seemed so improbable that he had to see for himself.
His drive into New Orleans, the last major stop of his travels, came at the beginning of a revolutionary change in the country's race relations, heralded in the person of Rosa Parks who refused to sit in the back of a bus, and the black sit-ins at white lunch counters. Things were more intense when it came to desegregation of public school systems in the south. An early hint of the intensity of feelings on that issue came in l957, just three years after the Supreme Court ruling against school segregation, when President Eisenhower sent troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, to integrate Central High School.
Knowing he was entering a very hostile situation in New Orleans, Steinbeck took the precaution of disguising himself as a British merchant seaman, complete with accent, and parking his camper with its New York license plate a good distance from the street demonstration. He did not have to wait to get to the school before experiencing the bitterness surrounding the issue.
Beginning with the parking lot where he left his camper, the depth of the bigotry was evident with the lot attendant. When he came up to Steinbeck's truck he looked at Charley and said, "Man, oh man, I thought you had a nigger in there. I see that big old black face and I think it's a big old black nigger." Next came the cab driver taking him to the school asking, "Where you from?" Assuming his seaman's role, Steinbeck replied, "Liverpool," which made things okay with the driver. A bit later came the following exchange:
Driver: Why I like niggers. And them Goddamn New York Jews come in and stir the niggers up. They just stay in New York and their wouldn't be no trouble.
Ought to take them out.
Steinbeck: You mean lynch them?
Driver: I don't mean nothing else, mister.
(Just four years later in l964 three young civil rights workers, including two Jewish students from New York were murdered in Mississippi. Seven men were eventually sent to jail and 40 years later the case was reopened and another trial was held in 2005 when an eighth person, a white minister, was convicted of manslaughter.)
When Steinbeck arrived at the William Frantz Elementary School he saw a crowd assembled behind police barricades. At the front were the Cheerleaders. The targets were Ruby Bridges, a six-year old black girl who was integrating the school, and the U.S. Marshals escorting her to enforce the integration. (At this point it wasn't really integration since all of the white kids were taken out of the school by their parents.)
"Perhaps that is what made me sick with weary nausea. Here was no principle
good or bad, no direction. These blowzy women with their little hats and their
(newspaper) clippings hungered for attention. They were not mothers, not even
women. They were crazy actors playing to a crazy audience."
Over the next few days he talked with several people with diverse views on the issue. One was an old white southerner sympathetic to the black problem but deeply concerned about the future and how hard it would be for those on both sides of the issue to change their views. Next was an old black hitchhiker who was very wary of discussing the issue with a white stranger. Then came a white racist who hitched a ride but was told to get out when the discussion became too heated; he kept shouting "nigger lover" as Steinbeck drove off. And finally a young black student hitchhiker who was tired of the slow progress being made toward racial equality. "The gains are a drop of water and time is passing. I want it faster, I want action--action now."
The "now" began four years later with passage of the Civil Rights Act of l964, followed a year later with the Voting Rights Act of l965. But in the mid-l960s we also had the beginning of urban riots in northern and western cities such as Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, and Los Angeles. The two civil rights acts revolutionized the life and political clout of southern blacks, but did virtually nothing to deal with the de facto segregation and problems of poverty and job and housing discrimination faced by blacks outside the south.. The urban riots culminated in the spring of l968 with numerous outbreaks, primarily in northern cities, following the assassination of Martin Luther King. Thus, what seemed to be clearly defined problems of state and local de jure segregation and discrimination in the south in the early 60s expanded to become bread and butter issues outside the south. This led to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program focused on ending job and housing discrimination plus other ground breaking legislation in education and health care, and an umbrella anti-poverty program that dealt with problems such as pre-school education, a lack of social services, and legal representation for the poor.
Now fast forward 50 years for a look at New Orleans and the broader picture of racial progress in the country. The fault line of his conversations and observations was school desegregation. Today the fault line is Hurricane Katrina.
On August 29, 2005, a devastating hurricane hit New Orleans and a long stretch of the Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama coastline, causing widespread destruction and the dislocation of hundreds of thousands of residents and businesses. In New Orleans itself, tens of thousands of people evacuated the city before the storm and fled inland to safety, while many thousands more remained behind and had to be rescued from rooftops and seek shelter in refugee centers. And thousands more relocated to other Louisiana cities and other states and never returned.
Today Steinbeck would find that the hurricane resurrected the racial issue in New Orleans which had gone from one-third to two-third black and had elected three black mayors over the 50 years since he had been there. In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane there were charges coming out of the black community that federal help was slow in coming because the bulk of the victims were poor and black. There is also a belief that race was a big factor both in the rescue efforts and subsequent rebuilding of the neighborhoods. Some blacks also believe that just after Katrina had passed and the sun was shining, there was an explosion and the levee was blown up to allow water to rush in and level part of the 9th ward where neighborhood destruction and the loss of black population were the greatest.
Thus, white bitterness about school desegregation in l960, has been replaced by bitterness within a shrunken black population about what they see as whites using Hurricane Katrina as a way to permanently drive blacks from the city and restore white control. Since Katrina there are more white members on the city council and school board and a white mayor was elected in 2009 to replace a black mayor who had served the two terms permitted. But the changes have occurred within a context radically altered by a half century of civil rights laws accompanied by changes in the political and social culture of the city and the region as whites seeking election must now take into account the views and seek the support of their black voters.
Nationally, the combined effect of the 50 years of progress in race relations culminated in 2008 with the election of the first black President, Barack Obama. It would be comforting to think that Obama's election signified the end of race as a major issue in the country, but, alas, such does not seem to be the case. Race has now become a renewed, often whispered but sometimes spoken aloud issue in our body politic, as shown by various depictions of President Obama on posters, the June Tea Party rally with its racial epithets, and the frequent occasions when Rush Limbaugh comes up with his racial interpretations on current events. (If one is puzzled by the far reach of Limbaugh's views, perhaps it is because he fears he will be outflanked on the right by the outer fringe pronouncements of Glenn Beck.)
In any case, this new bigotry stems in large part from the re-emergence among some segments of the population of older attitudes about blacks and their "appropriate place" in the national life. To many, the first black President should be a one-term President--because he is black. So, Charley, while the high decibel virulence and violence of the racial issue has toned down, the issue of racism itself has gained a new lease on life.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Chest Beating on Federal Deficits
Chest Beating on Federal Deficits
Flash: U.S. red ink tops $1trillion,
though June tally in decline
This is a headline on a story in today's newspaper. One can now expect this to lead to another round of chest thumping from those who call for an end of federal deficit spending, pointing to how states have to balance their budgets and/or how a family has to live within its means. The fact is that such fiscal restraint is largely mythology.
Most states are required to balance only a part of their budgets and a few states don't even have to do that. If required by state constitutions, statutes, or judicial decision, states only have to balance what is commonly called the general fund which covers the day-to-day operating costs of the state such as salaries of state employees, health care, education and so on. Revenues for these expenditures come largely from income and sales taxes. And even then the operating budget is often balanced by not setting aside sufficient money each year to pay for future retirement obligations or delaying tax refunds and other deferable costs until the next fiscal year. But states have a second set of expenditures--the capital budget. To the extent that the capital markets smile on them, states borrow money for their capital budgets, the money going for long-term investments such as office buildings, land acquisitions, their share of road and bridge construction (a large share of the last item coming from the federal government). Thus state spending is not balanced at all; it is significantly funded with borrowed money.
The federal government, on the other hand, isn't able to divide its spending into operating and capital costs. It basically has a single budget, although there is a long history of so-called off budget spending for such things as wars to reduce the annual deficit. Thus, whether the federal government is spending its money on federal employee and military salaries, health care costs, combat ships, warplanes or various payments to state governments for education, medicaid, or stimulus projects, it all goes into a single budget. Without the advantage of having a separate capital budget for long-term investment spending, the federal annual deficits can be huge, giving deficit hawks a huge opportunity to blast the federal profligate spending. And this doesn't even take into account the contentious issue of federal borrowing from its own trust funds such as social security to fund the lots of things other than social security payments.
Now for the household. The family operates in a similar fashion to the federal government in that its long term investments such as the mortgage and family car are paid along with food, utilities, etc., out of the family revenue stream-- the paycheck. (In public finance vehicles are commonly funded through the annual general fund but sometimes are shifted into the capital account and treated as long term investments so the general fund can be balanced.) Thus, it can be argued that the family does live within its means. But for a large number of families, there is significant deficit spending through the credit card. If the monthly credit card balance is paid in full, it is living within its means. But if for a variety of reasons the paycheck doesn't afford full payment, the carryover balance adds to its future obligations, boosted significantly through the interest rate on the balance. Also, according to many reports, families are often using the credit card to pay for large, unexpected medical costs, thus putting them into financial jeopardy.
So before the budget/deficit hawks get off another round of chest thumping triggered by the daily news headlines and/or their political need to get re-elected, they should think about the fallaciousness/hypocrisy of their oratory. But in this age of political hyperbole and "to the barricades" protest, one should have limited expectations for accuracy and reasonableness.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Charley, if you could hear it now
Introduction. Creating this blog was inspired by a re-reading of John Steinbeck's book TRAVELS WITH CHARLEY and his observations of l960 America. Some of my initial postings will take a then-and-now view of various things he said relative to civil rights/racism, immigration, and the environment. There will be a left of center view in these and future postings as timely and hopefully thoughtful inspirations occur. Postings will vary from letter-to-the-editor length to mini essays. Your comments are welcome, supportive or otherwise.
-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-
CHARLEY IF YOU COULD HEAR IT NOW
Fifty years ago, Nobel prize winning author John Steinbeck set out on a voyage of personal rediscovery of America. It was not a sight seeing tour, but rather, as he put it: "I, an American writer, writing about America was working from memory. . . . I knew the changes only from books and newspapers. . . . I had not felt the country for twenty-five years."
Out this came his best selling book, TRAVELS WITH CHARLEY, his French poodle who accompanied him on his three-month circumnavigation of the country. The book was a collection of l960 observations and musings ranging from the pleasantries of sharing beer and brandy with a group of "Canucks" in Aroostook County, Maine, to outrage about the racism he witnessed in New Orleans when it was forced to integrate an elementary school. It was a time when the Cold war and the Soviet Union simplified the task of defining the enemy. Today, we turn to Pogo, the wise cartoon possum, who said in l970, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
The Road from Pleasantville
Tracking the "enemy" between Steinbeck's l960 travels and today parallels somewhat the changing world depicted in the l998 movie PLEASANTVILLE. In that movie the
l950s are characterized as a black and white world of conservatism and conformity. It was a decade highlighted by the political civility of President Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson, twice his opponent for the presidency, and when the man in the gray flannel suit was the image of that conservatism and conformity. But as the people of Pleasantville are exposed to more adventuresome social mores, often sexually based, the people and the scenes gradually appear in vibrant technicolor until everyone and everything is brightly colorized. Steinbeck's journey came at the juncture of this portrayed monochromatic l950s and the technicolor period that began with the l960s.
Steinbeck started out about six weeks before the Kennedy-Nixon presidential election, yet in his conversations with people across the country he found "no arguments, no discussions" about politics. In driving through North Dakota he commented, "I had been keen to hear what people thought politically, those whom I had met did not talk about it. It seemed to me partly caution and partly a lack of interest, but strong opinions were just not stated." It wasn't until he got to Monterey, California, that he found people willing to have heated arguments about politics--his sisters who were Republican. They accused him of talking "like a communist". He countered that "you sound surprisingly like Genghis Khan". He found a similar political vacuum in listening to local radio stations as he traveled. "And apart from a few reportings of football games, the mental fare has been as generalized, as packaged, and as undistinguished as the food."
A half century later, it is difficult to listen to local radio without being bombarded throughout the day by political talk shows, most frequently hosted by conservatives or libertarians, some with a bit of the thespian within them. If you search hard enough, you might find a liberal host. But regardless of where on the ideological spectrum a talk show may fall, the air waves are now filled with toxic opinions of both hosts and listeners, designed not to make ideological converts so much as to solidify already held beliefs and give listeners the latest talking points. The radio talk shows find echoes from 24-hour cable programs on television, most notably from the usually right wing Fox and the sometimes left wing MSNBC, with the listener ratings of the former far exceeding those of the latter.
From Pluralism to the Tea Party
This change in political atmospherics reflects a broader change in our politics. Steinbeck's political world was one in which we perceived ourselves as a pluralistic nation in which issue conflicts were resolved by bringing together opposing groups to cobble out a compromise solution. No group got all that it wanted all of the time; most groups got something some of the time. Shelby Foote, the Civil War historian, stated that the art of compromise was the genius of our system. But today compromise, certainly as practiced in Washington, too often produces a result that compromises in favor of powerful interest groups such as the National Rifle Association, Wall Street bankers, and hedge fund managers.
It must be said, however, that this 50-year old benevolent, self-perceived image of pluralism did not go unchallenged. A counter view held that there existed a power structure made up of political, military, and economic elites who controlled decision making for their own advantage. There was a "compromise" theory, elite pluralism, that said there was indeed a group negotiating process but the different groups were controlled by their own elites. Other theories/perceptions also evolved. One was hyperpluralism in which there was an uncontrolled proliferation of organized groups and with so many moving, colliding parts the system was being stalemated. Within this complex maze was also found single-issue politics where there was such intensity of feeling on particular issues such as gun control or abortion that a person holding or seeking office was evaluated primarily on where he or she stood on that issue.
Now, 50 years after Steinbeck's travels, it is the time of the Tea Party movement which sprang up in 2009 and backs candidates such as Senate hopefuls Rand Paul in Kentucky who misspeaks too often on issues such as civil rights and oil spills, and Sharron Angle in Nevada who just speaks too often on matters that often transcend human understanding. By many, or most, the Tea Party is perceived as a far right movement where an office holder/seeker is measured by his or her adherence to a basket of anti-government issues such as health care reform, deficits, taxes, immigration, and gun control. To pass the litmus test of acceptability by the various groups that have attached themselves to the movement, one has to accept or be seen as accepting the Tea Party positions on all issues in the basket. To deviate invites attacks. Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts was elected as a darling of the Tea Party but fell from grace when he voted with Senate Democrats on some major issues. Attacks by Tea Party adherents are aimed primarily at left-of-center office holders/seekers, but also traditional conservatives of both parties who fear they may be outflanked at election time by persons farther to the right backed by the Tea Party movement.
In early 2010 there emerged a below-the-radar counter movement, the Coffee Party, which takes a more centrist pro-government view on various issues hoping to attract the support of discontented Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans. Organizers of this movement emphasize the need for more civility in political discourse to end what they see as an increasingly nasty, gridlocked system. Instead of using street demonstrations to push their agenda, Coffee Party adherents seek to expand support through the spread of small groups meeting in coffee shops across the country. So far the Coffee Party has been a muted participant in a public discourse increasingly marked by clash and clang.
Capsulized, over the 50 years since Steinbeck and Charley made their journey, our politics has morphed from a system of low decibel, pluralistic politics characterized by civility in discussing opposing views, to one of high decibel, "to the barricades" confrontation. We no longer have the Cold War and the Russians to cement us together. Pogo spoke prophecy. Charley, if you could hear it now.
-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-
CHARLEY IF YOU COULD HEAR IT NOW
Fifty years ago, Nobel prize winning author John Steinbeck set out on a voyage of personal rediscovery of America. It was not a sight seeing tour, but rather, as he put it: "I, an American writer, writing about America was working from memory. . . . I knew the changes only from books and newspapers. . . . I had not felt the country for twenty-five years."
Out this came his best selling book, TRAVELS WITH CHARLEY, his French poodle who accompanied him on his three-month circumnavigation of the country. The book was a collection of l960 observations and musings ranging from the pleasantries of sharing beer and brandy with a group of "Canucks" in Aroostook County, Maine, to outrage about the racism he witnessed in New Orleans when it was forced to integrate an elementary school. It was a time when the Cold war and the Soviet Union simplified the task of defining the enemy. Today, we turn to Pogo, the wise cartoon possum, who said in l970, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
The Road from Pleasantville
Tracking the "enemy" between Steinbeck's l960 travels and today parallels somewhat the changing world depicted in the l998 movie PLEASANTVILLE. In that movie the
l950s are characterized as a black and white world of conservatism and conformity. It was a decade highlighted by the political civility of President Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson, twice his opponent for the presidency, and when the man in the gray flannel suit was the image of that conservatism and conformity. But as the people of Pleasantville are exposed to more adventuresome social mores, often sexually based, the people and the scenes gradually appear in vibrant technicolor until everyone and everything is brightly colorized. Steinbeck's journey came at the juncture of this portrayed monochromatic l950s and the technicolor period that began with the l960s.
Steinbeck started out about six weeks before the Kennedy-Nixon presidential election, yet in his conversations with people across the country he found "no arguments, no discussions" about politics. In driving through North Dakota he commented, "I had been keen to hear what people thought politically, those whom I had met did not talk about it. It seemed to me partly caution and partly a lack of interest, but strong opinions were just not stated." It wasn't until he got to Monterey, California, that he found people willing to have heated arguments about politics--his sisters who were Republican. They accused him of talking "like a communist". He countered that "you sound surprisingly like Genghis Khan". He found a similar political vacuum in listening to local radio stations as he traveled. "And apart from a few reportings of football games, the mental fare has been as generalized, as packaged, and as undistinguished as the food."
A half century later, it is difficult to listen to local radio without being bombarded throughout the day by political talk shows, most frequently hosted by conservatives or libertarians, some with a bit of the thespian within them. If you search hard enough, you might find a liberal host. But regardless of where on the ideological spectrum a talk show may fall, the air waves are now filled with toxic opinions of both hosts and listeners, designed not to make ideological converts so much as to solidify already held beliefs and give listeners the latest talking points. The radio talk shows find echoes from 24-hour cable programs on television, most notably from the usually right wing Fox and the sometimes left wing MSNBC, with the listener ratings of the former far exceeding those of the latter.
From Pluralism to the Tea Party
This change in political atmospherics reflects a broader change in our politics. Steinbeck's political world was one in which we perceived ourselves as a pluralistic nation in which issue conflicts were resolved by bringing together opposing groups to cobble out a compromise solution. No group got all that it wanted all of the time; most groups got something some of the time. Shelby Foote, the Civil War historian, stated that the art of compromise was the genius of our system. But today compromise, certainly as practiced in Washington, too often produces a result that compromises in favor of powerful interest groups such as the National Rifle Association, Wall Street bankers, and hedge fund managers.
It must be said, however, that this 50-year old benevolent, self-perceived image of pluralism did not go unchallenged. A counter view held that there existed a power structure made up of political, military, and economic elites who controlled decision making for their own advantage. There was a "compromise" theory, elite pluralism, that said there was indeed a group negotiating process but the different groups were controlled by their own elites. Other theories/perceptions also evolved. One was hyperpluralism in which there was an uncontrolled proliferation of organized groups and with so many moving, colliding parts the system was being stalemated. Within this complex maze was also found single-issue politics where there was such intensity of feeling on particular issues such as gun control or abortion that a person holding or seeking office was evaluated primarily on where he or she stood on that issue.
Now, 50 years after Steinbeck's travels, it is the time of the Tea Party movement which sprang up in 2009 and backs candidates such as Senate hopefuls Rand Paul in Kentucky who misspeaks too often on issues such as civil rights and oil spills, and Sharron Angle in Nevada who just speaks too often on matters that often transcend human understanding. By many, or most, the Tea Party is perceived as a far right movement where an office holder/seeker is measured by his or her adherence to a basket of anti-government issues such as health care reform, deficits, taxes, immigration, and gun control. To pass the litmus test of acceptability by the various groups that have attached themselves to the movement, one has to accept or be seen as accepting the Tea Party positions on all issues in the basket. To deviate invites attacks. Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts was elected as a darling of the Tea Party but fell from grace when he voted with Senate Democrats on some major issues. Attacks by Tea Party adherents are aimed primarily at left-of-center office holders/seekers, but also traditional conservatives of both parties who fear they may be outflanked at election time by persons farther to the right backed by the Tea Party movement.
In early 2010 there emerged a below-the-radar counter movement, the Coffee Party, which takes a more centrist pro-government view on various issues hoping to attract the support of discontented Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans. Organizers of this movement emphasize the need for more civility in political discourse to end what they see as an increasingly nasty, gridlocked system. Instead of using street demonstrations to push their agenda, Coffee Party adherents seek to expand support through the spread of small groups meeting in coffee shops across the country. So far the Coffee Party has been a muted participant in a public discourse increasingly marked by clash and clang.
Capsulized, over the 50 years since Steinbeck and Charley made their journey, our politics has morphed from a system of low decibel, pluralistic politics characterized by civility in discussing opposing views, to one of high decibel, "to the barricades" confrontation. We no longer have the Cold War and the Russians to cement us together. Pogo spoke prophecy. Charley, if you could hear it now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)