More on Hope

I am thinking a lot about hope for the future these days, and also trust in government. A recent commenter said this:

I think there is something really positive about feeling good about Obama in itself. If people are behind him and positive whatever change he can actually make will be more effective than if people are totally cynical. I’d rather feel hopeful (perhaps with a sense of reality) about a president doing mediocre things than to be disparaging about a president doing mediocre things even if the outcome is the same.

Thoughts? Is it good to be hopeful even if it isn’t very founded, or it is based on mediocrity? Is it good to trust government even if it isn’t very founded, even if the government isn’t THAT trustworthy? Does it somehow make for a better democracy? Are hope and trust important values in and of themselves, or just ways of indulging our idealism and desire for things to be different?

p.s. On the off chance that someone knows literature that deals with these questions, I would love to know about it.

Obama and hope

I thought ChaliceChick was pretty amusing today when she said this – she remembers what it was like to be a Hillary supporter when

Obama was made of kittens and fairydust and was going to change politics forever and ever.

I try not to get too involved in politics since I live with Mr. Political Science who is involved enough with it for both of us, but I still thought this was funny. I think of my wise friend who is the benefactor of this blog when she was visiting last summer: she said, “If it was easy or even possible to be non-partisan and work together well with the Republicans, lots of people would have done it already. It isn’t like anyone hasn’t thought of that before.” Not that I don’t appreciate his efforts and the nice words he says, but it seems that this whole post-partisan change new world we-can-do-it is just a lot harder than he thought.

Not to be all anti-Obama, because I think he is just fine, just not nearly as good as he said he was going to be and everyone thought he would be, it does remind me of this cartoon which I find amusing.

Just some random thoughts on another rainy day….

Washington and the new pres

I know lots of liberals are gung ho about our new president. I am not so impressed. I see lots of different rhetoric.* Not a lot of different policies. I am not disappointed, however, because I never had hopes that it would be so different. Before he even ran I heard someone say something like, “You don’t get to run for president of the United States by doing things differently.” I thought that was a good point – the system is set up to keep out real, actual change makers.

I’m not saying he is a bad guy, and of course he is better than the last round of White House folks. Of course, real change would have been nice. Although I don’t like the casual tone of the article, the gist of David Michael Green’s article, “Get Obama,” was a somewhat good summary of some of the issues I’m talking about. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/10-3

Why write this blog post, you ask? Since it is not well thought out and probably will disturb a large part of my already rather meager readership? I just get sooooo tired of hearing people being so ra-ra Obama because he is so eloquent when he talks and he does lots of nice symbolic things with declarations and memos about openness and such. Not that I want everyone to be down on him – rather I just want people to expect more of a president that makes lots of claims about change change change. I want us to demand more and not be so happy that the president isn’t George Bush or John McCain that we settle for any old thing that isn’t downright dreadful (and, I must say, while he does less dreadful stuff than GWB, he still seems to have his share of dreadful).

And I think that might be my only political post for the next six months. Living with a political scientist who wakes up and falls asleep talking politics is nearly all I can take of this stuff. But I thought I would do one Obama post while the inspiration strikes. Feel free to comment but it is unlikely that I’m going to take time to respond thoughtfully. Not that your comments are unimportant but political debates just aren’t my thing these days. I am politically fatigued.

*This is not to say that different rhetoric is not important. It is. For instance, even if you are going to be a pushy super-power, I think it is much better done with nice, team-work-ish rhetoric than you-do-what-we-say-stupid-peons rhetoric.

What are we to do?

My partner is German, and he and his generation dealt with the question of what to say to their parents and grandparents who knew what was happening during the war, but didn’t do anything. How to understand that? What to do with that?

What are we to do with this?

In all, 98 detainees have died while in U.S. hands, with 34 identified as homicides, at least eight of which were tortured to death….

I fear that these numbers are too low, but even if they are exaggerated, one death by torture is too much. How will I respond to my little one, who sleeps on my chest as I write this, when he grows up and asks if I knew of the torture my country was committing? When he asks me what I did? Blogging and sermon-giving and voting and going to a protest and praying all feel woefully inadequate, yet it is about all I can think of. I am so disappointed with my country of citizenship and residence. I have never identified strongly with my country, yet I don’t think that somehow relieves me of guilt by association when terrible things are done by the U.S. government.

I knew of so many bad things in our past… yet somehow for me, systematic torture during my lifetime seems so clear… so obvious… so much like something that I feel we should be able to stop. If this is okay, what is not okay? If this doesn’t provoke outrage… and legal action agianst those responsible, what possibly could?

I find myself increasingly questioning what a democracy is. At what point is a country no longer a democracy? How many human rights and international laws must be violated before a country gives up the right to claim noble values and good intentions and such things as rule of law? I know this is not a well-thought out or well-articulated post. Mostly I just feel despair and sickness and a deep sadness about this. I wanted this nation to do better. To live up to its best self instead of confirming the worst.

Marriage Equality – whoo-hooo!

While I have always been a HUGE supporter of marriage equality, I also have ambivalent feelings about marriage,  how great it is, and even if it should exist in the form that it does. I have just never been able to get on board with the idea that marriage makes the world better – that somehow it is good for society that if more people get married, things are better and more stable. Ah, but that is for another post. Today, I want to celebrate! Because, no matter how we feel about marriage as an institution, people want to be legally recognized as a family, should have that right, and deserve to celebrate the great victories that have been rolling in in recent months.

Maine has been the most recent state to legalize marriage for same-sex couples.* Maine joins Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont in allowing same-sex couples to marry. (Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that California will re-join this list somehow.) The District of Columbia and New York State do not allow same-sex marriages to be performed, but the recognize those performed in other states. And Washington State, Oregon, and New Jersey all allow same-sex civil unions which, in some ways, allow all the same privileges that marriage does in that state, except, of course, a pretty darn important one which is the name marriage.

Anyway, I just wanted to give a shout out to all of these states and the people who have worked so hard to bring these changes about, to the judges and elected officials who have made the right and just choice by allowing same-sex couples who love each other to receive (mostly) the same legal protections and recognition and benefits that male/female couples are accorded. I feel like this is one step toward the world where we want to live – where families are families based – not on gender and sex – but on commitment, caring and love. I know we have so far to go, but I am pretty happy to witness the progress that has been made in my lifetime.

Blessed be to all of the people who have waited so very long to be legally recognized as families, and, in many ways, to be recognized as people capable of love and committment. May we continue to stand in solidarity with those who are still waiting for this sort of justice – and so many other sorts of justice.

__

*Not to get all picky, but I also struggle with the terms “gay” marriage and even “same-sex” couples and marraige. But that is also for another post. (Note to self: actually do the posts on gender issues you’ve been meaning to for, um, several years.)

Confident Politicians Smiling Big

Confidence After Meeting On the Economy

This is the headline that the New York Times ran with the above picture. I’m sure they are smiling and feeling so damn confident because they all have secure jobs and will probably get reelected because the corporations will happily fund their reelection campaigns because the stimulus package is apparently quite helpful to all the banks and companies who can pay off their debt and feel more secure and continue to pay their CEOs 400% of the average worker salary. This so-called stimulus package seems far less helpful for, you know, people who vote and that sort of thing. If I were these politicians, I would try to look just a little less happy and sound a little less confident. Because right now I feel like no one can really take them seriously in their confidence when we watch our jobs, and the jobs of our friends and family disappear or go from stable to questionable, and watch our investments (if we have them) drop by 40% and lose our houses and live from paycheck to paycheck.

Grrrr.

The Rick Warren Bru-ha-ha

I am of two minds on the Rick Warren matter.

My first reaction is to say, “Look, I don’t like the guy either. I don’t agree with his theology. I don’t agree with his politics. But it isn’t like he was chosen to be the minister-in-chief or something. He is giving an invocation. I know it has a lot of symbolic meaning, but it doesn’t have any practical consequences in and of itself. It is a gesture of the president elect to say, ‘I am not a president only to progressives or to liberals, but a president to the whole country.’ And, there are big parts of the country that can identify with Rev. Rick Warren. And, as conservative evangelical pastors go, he is one of the less offensive ones who has at least made some overtures toward changing the tone of the rhetoric. My hope is that it is a gesture that will soften the hearts of those who would tend to be more opposed to Obama and his policies. It will not solve many problems, but it is a gesture of unity, which people are always talking about. You know, one country, working out our differences and that sort of thing. By saying all of this, I don’t mean to say that I don’t understand why people don’t like it. Heck, I don’t like it either. But I see it as a strategic move that may help in the long run with things that matter more than who gives the invocation at the inauguration.” (It is of course another matter whether there should be invocations and benedictions at inaugurations anyway.)

That said, it occurred to me how often discrimination against women or the GLBTQ community can often be chalked up to theology, while few people will stand for discrimination against ethnic minorities chalked up to theology. I try to imagine if someone gave the invocation that said that they still supported slavery based on theology. Or that women should obey thier husbands based on theology (heck, Warren may agree with the second of those statements). What would it mean to have someone give the invocation as a gesture of unity and goodwill who was known to support legalized discrimination against women – that they should get paid less, that rape should be less of a crime, that they should not have inheritance rights? Hmm. No matter how symbolic or strategic that would be, I would be feeling really unhappy about this. So then I started rethinking what I said above.

And now I just don’t know. The thing is, so many of these difficult issues are totally intrackable. “We” dig in our heals. “They” dig in their heels. We write on our blogs about why we are right. We affirm each other at our churches about why we are right. We are smug. We know whose side God is on. And where does this get us? What is the way forward toward better understanding each other, finding common ground to work on together, even, dare I say it, finding areas where compromise makes sense. I am not talking about any particular issue, but rather all of these very intense social and political issues that are so close to our hearts – all of our hearts – and where it seems so difficult to move forward.

I’m guessing having Rick Warren give the invocation at the inauguration isn’t the answer. But I wish we could come up with a better one that just insisting on how right and just we are and getting offended and indignant. Not that I am somehow immune to this. I do it to. But there must be a better way…

Glad about the president-elect. But let’s get something straight…

Or really two things.

First, racism is not dead. Or over. We are not living in a post-race America, for God’s sake. If I hear one more person saying we are now a united country, or that racism is over, or that Americans are no longer racist, I am going to puke. I thought it especially interesting that the Boston Globe said,

As they woke yesterday morning, settling into the news that voters had elected an African-American to be the next president, schoolchildren and professors, chief executives and bus drivers, black people, white people, and others were asking themselves a simple question. Is racism in America dead?

Really? Black people are asking that? Do they live in the U.S.? And, like, ever watch T.V. or leave the house? What about all these other people (including the media who seem to be asking this the most, may God have mercy on their souls)? Did they not not follow any of the election coverage? Like where the guys said that Obama was going to pull up the rose garden and plant a watermelon patch? Did they not receive the emails about him being a Arab Muslim terrorist or the other very racist emails that parts of my very extended family felt inspired to share with me? Did they not hear people say it isn’t that they don’t like Michelle Obama, it is just that she seems angry? Have they not read the incarceration statistics for the United States?

It is progress people, but it ain’t over.

Second, Barak Obama is not Jesus. Or the Buddha. Or a magic worker. He is a politician. And last time I checked, you don’t get to be the president of the United States without being far from perfect. Without having to answer to corporate interests. Without exaggerating, stretching the truth, and balancing a lot of competing interests. I think he is a decent guy, but I’m afraid people are going to be in for a shock if they think that THIS IS IT. I loved it how he said that this isn’t the change we seek – this is the opportunity for change. And how he asked for sacrifice. And hard work and service. Let’s see how that flies. I hope it does because we need it. I hope he can do something different. But I think we should keep our expectations reasonable and not project this savior thing on him. He is cleaning up a huge mess. It will be hard. And I don’t think even the greatest politician ever could do it in one term. I hope America will be patient. And that Obama will be able to live up to, at least to some extent, what I do believe he wants. It is just that if uniting and bipartisian work were very easy, my guess is that someone would have done it by now.

We shall see.

Let’s just say that I am working my heart out for McCain…Our Economy can’t survive an Obama presidency.

I was clicking around and ended up here at post about a Sarah Palin rally. And I just love this comment:

Carl says:

Let’s just say that I am working my heart out for McCain…

Our Economy can’t survive an Obama presidency.

And I just wonder how this thinking works. Because eight years of a Republican presidency have gone so well for the economy? Because John McCain will be soooo different from a Bush administration that he will turn things around? Or because the economy is not that bad now but it will get bad with an Obama presidency? I would say it cracks me up, except that it is real and serious, which makes it much less funny.

Trade-offs in politics – On not having it all.

I’m not sure where it started (I’m sure there is a book or paper on it somewhere), but clearly U.S. Americans cannot make good decisions about trade-offs in politics, i.e. there is this sense that we can have it all. And we can’t.

Not to over-kill poor Joe the Plumber who has been unwittingly pulled into the debates and center of the action, but I thought his statement about Obama’s tax plan was the perfect example of this (from the NYTimes):

Obama said that under his proposal taxes on any revenue from $250,000 on down would stay the same, but that amounts above that level would be subject to a 39 percent tax, instead of the current 36 percent rate.

Wurzelbacher said Obama’s tax plan wouldn’t affect him right now, because he doesn’t make $250,000. ”But I hope someday I’ll make that,” he said.

”If you believed (Obama), I’d be receiving his tax cuts,” Wurzelbacher said. ”But I don’t look at it that way. He’d still be hurting others.”

So he doesn’t yet make $250,000 a year, but he doesn’t want tax increases for those who do because maybe someday he will make that much. Obama would “still be hurting others.” Yes, um, like those who make over $250,000 a year.

And the thing is, dear Joe, that our government just spends a lot of money. On saving the financial system. On wars. On military. And, hopefully, eventually, on making sure that people have health care. On debt payments. And on crazy things like building roads and such. And you have to tax someone for this. So we can’t have all the things we want, like wars, and schools, and health care and roads and such unless we tax people. And I would rather it be people making more than $250,000 than less. $250,000 is kind of a lot of money – it means you are living comfortable, able to take care of yourself and your family, and probably take vacations, live in a nice house, eat well, and do fun stuff. Since a lot of people can’t buy a house, pay rent, eat well, eat enough, or get health care so they don’t suffer and die, I’m just afriad that people who are better off – out of either hard work or luck – are just going to have to pony up a little more.

Maybe instead of complaining about tax plans that tax those over $250,000 a bit more, U.S. Americans might not want to elect leaders that get us into so many wars, deregulate the financial industry so that it can do whatever it wants, and give huge tax cuts to those who are the best-off in this country. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about things so much, ehh?

Not that this is anything new. But I felt obliged to say it. And, I always write more when I am procrastinating on work. As I am doing now…