A boy's dream

I was reading this today and thought I'd share:

...the late entry of America into Western history meant that out national existence began at precisely the same moment as the novel itself, and that we have no prehistory (except as we attach ourselves to a larger Anglo-Saxon tradition) of Epic or Poetic Tragedy. Even our underlying national mythos is a Pop Myth and our Revolution consequently a Pop Revolution, as compared, for instance, with either the French or Russian Revolutions, which began with ideological disputes and the formulation of high-level manifestoes. Our own War of Independence, on the contrary, began not with abstract ideas at all (though later we composed idological documents to justify a fait accompli), but with a group of quite grown-up men dressing up like Indians and dumping into Boston Harbor that supreme symbol of effete European civilization, British tea. It is an event cued by a boy's dream, only later translated into the Declaration of Independence under the auspices of Thomas Jefferson, himself a small boy in love with gadgets, though he fancied himself a displaced philosophe.

This is from an old essay by Leslie Fiedler, a prominent literary critic from the 60's and 70's. His Love and Death in the American Novel is one of my favorite pieces of literary criticism, even if its approach is a bit outdated (unfortunately, literary critics often take themselves too seriously, and as a result disqualify themselves from this type of off-the-cuff, if careless, commentary--commentary I find refreshing and permissible since, after all, we are not scientists).

I offer up this excerpt on the eve of another election because it contains a humor that is always dangerous to politics. Put under this light, viewed from this perspective, the mythic image of American history recedes back into a more chaotic reality, in which countries are born on whims and chance, and not necessarily fate or providence.

Whatever happens tomorrow, may we all retain our senses of humor, the most powerful weapon we have to fight off (or point out?) the absurdity of politics, and life.

The New McCarthyism

Hmm. I'm liberal. I work on a college campus = I hate America!

It's the perpetual smile that's so loathsome. She's in congress. How could anyone vote for this person?

The Debate

I watched last night's debate and I've been digesting the reaction to it all day, via the news sites and blogs I frequent. A few of my own impressions:

1) McCain is a much better debater than he is speechmaker. I was impressed by his breadth of knowledge, at least about international relations and general world history. I thought his rantings about earmarks were laughable, given their relative insiginifance in the larger scheme of things.

2) While McCain's knowledge of the world is impressive, I thought that Obama did not give much ground to him on foreign policy and the Iraq War. I remain impressed that Obama was one of the few prescient ones in 2003 whose first inclination was to question whether Iraq was really a place we needed or wanted to invade.

3) I grew tired of McCain's obvious disdain for Obama. He did not, even once, look him in the face. Not once. He seemed patronizing and contempuous. Obama stayed respectful, as he always does.

4) I was watching the debate on CNN and they have this neat little tracker on the bottom of the screen that gauges audience reaction in real-time. You get to watch the reaction of 35 people to every moment in the debate. When they like something they turn the dial up, and when they don't like what they hear, they turn the dial down. They were evenly splite among Democrates, Republicans, and Independents, and you could watch how each separate group reacted. Anyway, the most intresting thing I noticed was that when one of the candidates went blatantly negative, all trend lines would immediately go down. McCain was far more negative (or, as those sympathetic to him might say, "aggressive") than Obama. Whenever he got snide, the audience generally reacted negatively.

5) I don't think anyone who has already made their mind up will change their minds as a result of the debate. The two basically repeated things they've already said before. However, their body language, their basic demeanor, and their temperaments were on display. Obama was calm and collected. McCain was annoyed and dismissive, as if to say, "how do you even share this stage with me?" Clinton did that too.

She lost.

6) Palin (and McCain) better hope that she does better with Joe Biden than she did with Katie Couric.

7) In the end, people generally see what they want to see in these kinds of things. I'm no exception.

Money; or, how greed is the true ruling party in the U.S.

After eight years of truly unprecedented expansion of presidential powers (see The Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendments Act, the Detainee Treatment Act, and the Patriot Act), is it really surprising that the Bush administration is so keen on now controlling financial markets as well?

(If I were really cynical, I might suggest that Bush would never let the market correct itself, because that might lead to a depression, which would be bad for Republicans during an election year).

The reaction from the Right has been interesting. Some, indeed, are skeptical of the $700 billion bailout plan, justifying their skepticism by citing their "conservative" political ideology. But where were they when the Bush administration justified new law after new law that expanded executive power with the argument that essentially tells us to "trust them"? Trust that they won't abuse their new spying powers; trust that they'll conduct the war soundly despite their lies which led to the war; trust they not turn the "War on Terror" into a justification for torture, etc., etc. Meanwhile, Bush issues "signing statements" that allow him to circumvent any legislation that pertains to the executive branch, he installs Justice Department lawyers who were required to pass ideological litmus tests, he practices political vindictiveness when anyone in the administration is criticized from within the government (his administration's outing of CIA agent Plame), and he regularly stonewalls, or lies to, the media, or just doesn't talk to them (Palin has recently picked up on this tactic, preferring stump speeches to interviews and press conferences).

In sum, whenever Bush has the option between more or less power, he has ALWAYS chosen more.

The reaction from the Left (although I think there isn't really a true "Left" in this country) has been curious as well. Democrats in this country are as culpable for our economic welfare as anyone. Though Phil Gramm [R, and McCain adviser] wrote and sponsored the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which overturned Depression era regulations on the market--which helped to grant banks the type of decision-making power they so abused in the recent decade--several Democratic Senators signed it, as did President Clinton; I'm thoroughly convinced that Democrats are just as beholden to capitalism, in all its good and bad qualities, as Republicans are. It's a complete myth that Democrats are not friendly to business. Clinton, for all the hatred he incites from the Right, made economic decisions based upon a free-market mindset. Now, the economy did well in the 90's (due in part to the "dot.com" boom, which history, not Clinton, was responsible for), but perhaps only now we're experiencing the long-term effects of laissez-faire economic policies.

What's been curious about the past eight years is that, in terms of the the war, and other domestic policies that stem from it (like FISA, which intrudes upon every American's privacy by making warrants obsolete), it has been Democrats (or at least a handful of them) that have been arguing for prudence and governmental restraint. It's been Republicans who have been more than willing to expand government, and its power over citizens, to an extent this country has not seen. I wonder if a Democratic president would have been granted the same powers by a Republican legislature? Probably not. That is why purely Partisan politics is so unhealthy. It's a voluntary abnegation of one's brain--and makes people (in this case Republicans) do things they normally wouldn't do (grant goverment more and more power). Partisanship makes it impossible to hold leaders accountable for their bad decisions.

Now it will be up to Democrats, and a handful of "conservatives", to at least make sure there's some restraint practiced in this bailout.

There really is no ideological consistency left in American politics. Sometimes that's good: you don't want your leaders to be absolutely ruled by any dogma to the point they become so inflexible that all their ideas and decisions are prescribed by some program or philosophy (if that were the case all you'd need is a copy of said program, and anyone could be president). On the other hand, it's getting really hard to tell right from left these days.

Perhaps "bipartisanship" is just a ruse, so that those without any values can cater to what they really care about: money, and those they are beholden to because of money.

Lies and Scare Tactics

After a nice day working on my diss and teaching, keeping my mind off politics, I have to end the day like this.

This is what the McCain campaign now resorts to: they have no arguments (did you see their convention? it was all biography!), and so they resort not just to distortion (that happens in any election cycle), but to straight up LIES. Does this ad purport that Obama actually supports teaching sex education to kindergartners? They incite the "culture wars," because folks, they got nothing else.

The truth: part of Obama's legislation promoted the importance of teaching young children about the difference between a "good touch" and a "bad touch." In other words, it promoted teaching kids, obviously in a delicate manner, how to avoid becoming a victim of sexual abuse!

And is Sarah Palin, who likely also "supports this message," really one to be lecturing Americans on how to teach children sex education?

Ha!

I want to meet the idiot who watches an ad like this and actually swallows it whole.

What I appreciate about the Obama campaign is that, even during the primaries when the Clintons used a defeat-at-all-cost strategy, and even when the McCain campaign flat-out lies about him, he has never resorted to anything like this. Surely McCain is not without honor, but his campaign is a circus freakshow masquerading as a political campaign. Obama does not employ people like Karl Rove, his minion, or his vile political philosophy. These Sophists reborn will get what's coming to them--the same thing the Clintons got for all their effort to exploit Obama's non-whiteness: a resounding defeat.

Cynical Idealist?

I've been thinking a lot about why I have so much emotionally invested in Obama's possible presidency. I think I knew all along, but I've been slow to admit it to myself. I read or heard somewhere, I can't remember, that it's pretty much been proven that most people vote for those whom they feel are most like them. Now, this seems awfully solipsistic, and also illogical. Just because someone isn't like you doesn't mean they can't be a good leader.

But when I'm really honest with myself, I know that I like Obama because more than any other politician, pretty much ever, I feel akin to his experiences. Of course, he' black, and I'm not. However, beyond that, for many years before he entered politics, he was a scholar of law. I define myself, at least professionally, as a scholar. His three favorite authors are Faulkner, Melville, and and Phillip Roth. Talk about going 3-for-3. In Dreams From My Father, his very well-written memoir, he talks about reading Invisible Man, and Malcolm X's autobiography--and several other books that have stirred me as well, and meant quite a bit to me over the years.

His wife's name is Michelle, he has young daughters, he's lived all over the place, and he's simply and obviously more attuned to my generation. I also agree with him on most (not all) of his policies and general beliefs about political and governmental issues. But part of my enthusiasm for him also stems, I think, from two other things: my early fascination with hip-hop culture, which many suburban white boys have experienced, and Obama's non-militaristic background. Let me be clear here: I have nothing against the military. I have many relatives who fought for the U.S. in WWII and Vietnam.

Yet, I think part of the reason that Iraq has been bungled is that this country often commits the error of confusing means and ends. What I mean is that our attitude toward the military, which is encapsulated by the common "Support the Troops" sentiment, promulgates the idea that we enter wars so that our heroes can exercise their god-given right to valor. For example, anyone who questions the Iraq War is often assumed as having not "supported the troops," as if this is the only thing that matters when evaluating our foreign policy. We get into wars to exercise foreign policy objectives, not to justify our already having sent troops to the battlefield. The argument that we would be somehow disservicing our troops if we were to get out of Iraq ASAP, suggests that the experience troops have, and their self-perception, and our perception of their heroism, is tantamount to why we went their in the first place. Sadly, though, our administration doesn't have a clue as to what exactly they want...a free Iraq? Palestine was also "given" a democracy and they elected Hamas. What if the Iraqis elect someone we don't like? Will it be a failed enterprise? Will a "free Iraq" really "change" the middle east? Maybe, but how could anyone answer that with the assurance necessary to send our troops to war, especially when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? That's a huge price to pay, and risk to take, for something you're merely guessing will turn out ok. If a war cannot be justified, you don't keep troops into the battlefield just to save face. You bring them home, cede that you've erred, and ask for forgiveness. If only we lived in that kind of world.

Call me an idealist. I've always considered myself a cynic and a skeptic, but lately I've realized that there's an idealism in me which has played a significant role in why I am so invested in this campaign, and which leads me to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when I disagree with him or when he shows weakness. I hope in the end that my enthusiasm for his candidacy will be justified by history and not simply by my own identification with him.

More Torture; Edwards, etc.

So now we learn that they're using coffin-sized boxes to hold detainess for up to 12 hours at a time at Gitmo. Know who used coffin-sized boxes on their prisoners? Nazis at Auschwitz.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/07/segregation.boxes/index.html

Many construe criticism of our government's torture methods, such as waterboarding, as overly-sensitive swooning for people who want to kill us. But you know what? It's not about them, it's about us. If Bush wants to lecture China on human rights abuses, which he did yesterday, then we should not abuse human rights either. Under this administration we have lost all moral high ground.

The Edwards story just broke as well. 1.) Did he actually think this wouldn't have come out if he had won the nomination?; 2.) I'm glad that he didn't win because it would have sunk him; 3.) Given the timing, he must have been two-timing his wife while she was being diagnosed with very serious cancer. Classy.

I'm so glad Obama has none of this type of baggage. I'm tired of that kind of soap opera, which we got enough of during the Clinton years.

Why I'm blogging

As I wrote in "about sam-plings" (to the right), I started this blog so that I can get into a regular habit of writing, which I need to be more disciplined about since I'm currently writing my dissertation. It's the final step--and by far the most difficult--I'll take in my graduate career before I finally get my PhD and hopefully, a tenure-track job.

Writing a dissertation is almost equivalent to writing a book (it's roughly the same length as the average book)--but not just any book. My readers are four very smart people who have all published widely-read books themselves (at least in lit crit circles); in addition, I'm writing about literature, which means I'm writing about writing. Lastly, the authors and texts I write about are ones that I care about and deeply respect.

All this has led to a reluctance to write. I've been researching and reading on my topic for over a year now, but that's the fun and easy part. Concocting and designing arguments that have not already been proffered before--that's what has me frozen at the moment. It's not really a crisis of confidence--I haven't gotten this far without a certain amount of confidence in my ideas and my ability to analyze--but that at this point I think I'm expecting too much out of myself. The first step is just to get my ideas on paper. I can always revise.

As far as this blog goes, I will rarely touch on my diss. A couple models that I'm following are Andrew Sullivan's (he writes for The Atlantic), and my friend and teacher, Charlie Bertsch's blog. What I appreciate about Sullivan's blog is his radical openness to other people's ideas and to critiques of his own positions. He's a conservative (in the old-fashioned sense--suspicious of collective action and government intervention), which means I disagree with him quite a bit. But I tend not to read blogs by people who I know I will agree with, because I can always predict their position. Sullivan constantly surprises me with fresh takes that are well-argued and unpredictable. He also has a knack for staying on top of important cultural trends.

What I appreciate about my friend Charlie's blog is that 1) they're very smart 2) he covers a wonderful variety of topics (everything from music to his daughter to sports) 3) he's very honest without being solipsistic.

Anyhow, I hope that what I imagine will be a very small readership of this blog, at first, will eventually grow. If not, I'm glad to write to family and friends. In the least, I hope it functions as a way for people who I care about to get to know me better. Most of my posts will be brief, but occasionally, I'll take time to write longer, more involved posts (once a week?).