Home » Posts tagged 'Politics' (Page 10)
Tag Archives: Politics
Open Season on Everyone
Let me be clear. I am no fan of Ann Coulter.
The right-wing firebrand disdains all forms of moderation in both tone and worldview, whether she is tweeting expletives about Jews or hailing Donald Trump’s immigration plan as a new Magna Carta. When it comes to discrediting the intellectual and moral integrity of conservatism, nobody does it better.
Even Ms. Coulter’s political mentor, arch-conservative David Horowitz, disavowed her for attempting to resurrect as a martyred crusader Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose self-serving campaign against communists real and imagined represents one of American history’s ugliest eras.
For my part, I’ve never gotten out of my head Ms. Coulter’s inexcusably cruel and utterly gratuitous swipe at Margot Kidder in a 2004 column about the controversy that eventually ended the career of CBS anchor Dan Rather. With neither context nor pretext, Ms. Coulter’s savaging of an admired actress struggling with bipolar disorder was even more contemptible that Donald Trump’s mocking of disabled reporter Serge Kovaleski.
So it may be simple karma that Ms. Coulter received as good as she dishes out at last weekend’s Comedy Central roast of actor Rob Lowe. Her mere presence on the dais apparently marked her as fair game, making her the target of more vicious barbs than the man-of-honor himself.
But karma does not excuse the cast of notables who turned what should have been good-natured (if adolescent) banter into a lynching party.
Fighting Political Correctness — Civilly
Conservatives across America are cheering University of Chicago dean John Ellison for his recent letter informing incoming students that they may have to suffer the indignity of confronting people they don’t agree with and ideas that make them uncomfortable.
Needless to say, the position was immediately denounced by zealots who sincerely believe that the only way to preserve intellectual freedom is by muzzling any and every utterance that they find threatening to their own feelings and worldview.
The sad reality is that there are racists and sexists in the world, just as some people are intellectually dishonest and plain rude. (Some of them are running for president of the United States.)
But people such as these will not go away or change their stripes because others attempt to silence them. The only effect of censorship is to drive people into more insulated camps and encourage their withdrawal into more extreme factions where groupthink reigns and all meaningful exchange of ideas is prohibited.
The freedom to disagree and engage in civil discourse is what keeps a society healthy, and a college campus is where intellectual and moral maturity are supposed to take root and blossom. It’s a challenging process; but there’s a reason for the expression growing pains.
When such distinguished figures at Condoleezza Rice and George Will — not to mention Binyamin Netanyahu — are disinvited on account of pressure from students who would rather hide from opposing viewpoints than defend their own positions, it is obvious that American universities are no longer serving their students or society at large.
A free society depends upon the ability to differentiate between legitimate opinions that differ from our own and pathological ideologies corrosive to moral values and human dignity. As such, we have to allow those who embrace the latter free voice so that we can then refute them from a position of reason, not opposing ideology.
In his book Civility, Stephen L. Carter makes the critical point that civil behavior — which is the foundation of civilization — requires a sensitivity to a code of personal conduct that goes beyond the letter of the law. By attempting to legislate free speech and codify free thought, we forfeit the essential value that human culture is built upon a commitment to seek and to do good, not merely to abstain from what is forbidden.
With courage and clarity of thought, we can engage those with whom we disagree in a way that is both civil and respectful. By doing so, we can promote mutual respect and understanding, while effectively marginalizing those who reject civility without needing to stifle all dissenting opinions.
This is not merely a prescription for American college campuses. It would serve to foster a much needed atmosphere of unity and fellowship in all our communities, at home and around the world.
Suffer the Children?
Twelve-year-olds don’t choose to become suicide bombers.
And true believers don’t send children as martyrs in place of themselves. The perpetrators of last week’s vicious attack on a Kurdish wedding in Turkey believe in nothing so much as violence as a means to their own power. It’s a sad sign of the times that we can almost admire the zealots of a few years ago who willingly gave their own lives for their ideals, no matter how convoluted those ideals may have been.
When fanatics eagerly give the last full measure of devotion — for which Abraham Lincoln praised the Union soldiers who sacrificed their lives at Gettysburg — we have to ask ourselves if we are prepared to sacrifice as much for our noble values as our enemies readily sacrifice in the name of terror.
The Seasons of our Discontent
I received the following email in response to my article last week about Donald Trump and Tony Soprano. I think it’s well worth posting here:
Dear Rabbi,
His point was that Donald Trump’s crude, impulsive, petty, and narcissistic behavior has no bearing on his fitness for office.
As I read these words in your email, a scene from the 1966 movie A Man for All Seasons came to my mind. The scene occurs at the beginning of the film between Cardinal Wolsey (Orson Welles) and Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield). This whole scene, all of it worth quoting and so marvelously acted, is one of my favorite “duets” in all movies but I’ll limit myself to the quote below. .
WOLSEY:
Let the dynasty die with Henry Vlll
and we’ll have dynastic wars again.
Blood-witted barons ramping the country
from end to end.
Is that what you want? Very well.
England needs an heir.
Certain measures, perhaps regrettable…
…perhaps not, there’s much in the Church
which needs reformation, Thomas.
All right, regrettable.
But necessary to get us an heir.
Now, explain how you, as a councillor
of England, can obstruct these measures
for the sake of your own private conscience.
SIR THOMAS MORE:
I think that when statesmen forsake
their own private conscience
for the sake of their public duties
they lead their country
by a short route to chaos.
Your usually clear headed good friend is willing to jettison his own private conscience for the sake of political expediency. Millions of other Americans who are also willing to do so are leading our country by a short route to chaos.
Your statement
The Hitlers, Stalins, and Ahmadinejads of the world may love their children and may have had troubled youths, but evil remains evil whether we choose to look it in the face or to bury our heads in the sand
likewise brought to my mind an excerpt from the 1936 movie The Life of Emil Zola, delivered by Zola (played by the incomparable Paul Muni) during Zola’s trial which came about because of Zola’s accusations against the army with regard to the injustice of the Dreyfus affair:
The minister of war,
the chief of the general staff…
…and the assistant chief never doubted
that the famous bordereau…
…was written by Esterhazy…
…but the condemnation of Esterhazy
involved revision of the Dreyfus verdict…
…and that the general staff
wished to avoid at all cost.
For over a year, the minister of war
and the general staff have known…
…that Dreyfus is innocent…
…but they have kept this knowledge
to themselves.
And those men sleep…
…and they have wives
and children they love.
Evil, depravity and mediocrity come in all shapes and sizes. When we are willing to dispense with our own moral consciences and standards in support of that evil for whatever reason we have permitted ourselves to become one with that evil and become just as guilty.
Regards,
Bill Meisler
Before the Flood
“Things will last my time,” said the Marquise de Pompadour, “But after me, le deluge.”
More prophetic words were never spoken. The mistress of Louis XV foresaw clearly the collapse of the French monarchy and the flood of violence and chaos that would engulf the next generation. But that was the future’s problem. Why should she care?
In some ways, her brutal disregard for future suffering is more palatable than the utopian fantasies and rhetorical flourishes of modern leaders. At least the Marquise knew what lay ahead, and at least she didn’t pretend that she had an easy fix to prevent the future from arriving on tomorrow’s doorstep.
But today we face an impending crisis no less ominous. Our expectations for national leadership have sunk so low that we are willing to overlook pathological, craven, and unapologetic dishonesty from one presidential candidate and volcanic, adolescent recklessness from the other. One can scour the nation’s capital without turning up even a smidgen of character and statesmanship, evidence of a political culture rife with cronyism, gridlock, and groupthink.
Tony Soprano Redux
A good friend of mine, who is usually more clear-headed, sent me a slimy little video asserting that character doesn’t matter, since both FDR and Winston Churchill smoked and drank while Adolf Hitler was a teetotaler and a vegetarian. His point was that Donald Trump’s crude, impulsive, petty, and narcissistic behavior has no bearing on his fitness for office.
While it is true that people are complicated, and that no one is completely virtuous or completely lacking in virtue, the indulgence in moral relativism is particularly galling when it comes from the right, after so many years of denouncing it as the Kool-Aid of choice among the left.
But the blurring of lines has been going on for a long time. It particularly hit its stride about ten years ago with the success of the Sopranos, which prompted an op-ed that I revisit here.
Psychoanalyst Glen Gabbard, author of The Psychology of The Sopranos: Love, Death, Desire and Betrayal in America’s Favorite Gangster Family, has an interesting take on the phenomenon of Tony Soprano.
The success of The Sopranos, it seems, depends not on Tony Soprano the mobster, but on Tony Soprano the psychoanalysis patient. Whereas in daily life, Tony is a crook, a thug, and a murderer, on the couch Tony is a regular guy, with the same hopes, dreams, problems, and anxieties as the rest of us.
Dr. Gabbard explains that people love to root for Tony the regular guy to prevail over Tony the violent criminal; they want more than anything to be able to find a noble everyman at the heart of the worst of the worst and the lowest of the low.
Simply stated, viewers don’t want to believe that anyone is really evil.
This is a remarkable turnabout from the early 80s when everyone’s favorite television creep was J.R. Ewing on Dallas. Back when “Who shot J.R.?” was on everybody’s lips, it wasn’t because we wanted to see the would-be assassin brought up on charges — we wanted to see him handed the key to the city. We didn’t want to understand J.R. — we wanted to hate him. We loved to hate him.
J.R. never killed anybody, never even beat anyone up, yet we cheered from our couches when he got what was coming to him and hoped desperately that his every nasty scheme would fail. If so, why do viewers in record numbers forgive everything for Tony Soprano, the Godfather who terrorizes and murders for fun and profit, just because he worries about his marriage and his children? C’mon, even J.R. loved his daddy.
Perhaps there’s no better barometer for the moral pressure of society than our relationship with television’s most popular characters. When we cheer for the good guys and boo the bad guys, isn’t it because of our desire to see that justice is done?
But when we sympathize with a violent criminal, when we identify with him because he cares about his kids just as we do, isn’t it a sign of abandoning the commitment to differentiate between right and wrong?
The job of making moral decisions, of balancing right and wrong in complex circumstances, is no simple business. But instead of challenging us to recognize that Tony is a villain in spite of his human side, The Sopranos (and, more generally, the entertainment industry) manipulates us into identifying with Tony’s humanity so that we overlook his wickedness.
Based on Dr. Gabbard’s assessment, it seems that we yearn to deny that genuine evil walks this earth. Indeed, it may be admirable to look for the good in all people and give our neighbor the benefit of the doubt, but not to the exclusion of recognizing that sometimes there is no doubt, that what little good remains in some people has been hopelessly buried under a mountain of evil. The Hitlers, Stalins, and Ahmadinejads of the world may love their children and may have had troubled youths, but evil remains evil whether we choose to look it in the face or to bury our heads in the sand.
Too often, it seems, we avoid looking evil in the face at any cost. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that a growing element in our society blames the United States for Pearl Harbor, blames Israel for Palestinian suicide bombers, blames all of Western Civilization for September 11. But making excuses for evil does not make evil go away.
It just keeps coming back, each time bolder and more brazen than before.
The Talmud warns us to distance ourselves from a bad neighbor and not to associate with a wicked friend. Even if he loves his kids. Even if his name is Tony Soprano. Perhaps, especially if his name is Tony Soprano.
Originally published in 2007 by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jewish World Review, and Aish.com.
Look in the Mirror, Mr. President
“The Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president.”
Such is the gospel according to Barack Obama, who went on to defend his verdict by citing “the repeated denunciations of his statements by leading Republicans.”
He’s right, of course. But his critique might carry more weight if it were not a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
(OMG, did I just write that?)
Before his very public embrace and endorsement of Hillary Clinton at the Democratic convention, Mr. Obama might have taken a look at the recent incendiary assessment of Ms. Clinton by NYT columnist Maureen Dowd, who’s about as far to the left as one can get without falling off the edge of the earth.
Here are a few choice quotes:
[The Clintons’] vast carelessness drags down everyone around them…
In a mere 11 days, arrogant, selfish actions by the Clintons contaminated three of the purest brands in Washington…
Hillary willfully put herself above the rules — again — and a president, campaign and party are all left twisting themselves into pretzels defending her.
The Clintons work hard but don’t play by the rules. Imagine them in the White House with the benefit of low expectations.
If even the most ardent defenders of liberal ideology give Ms. Clinton a failing grade in character, surely that must call into question her credibility as an aspirant for the country’s highest office.
So answer us this, President Obama: how can you, with a straight face and in all earnest, chide Republicans for not rejecting an unfit candidate when you so brazenly refuse to do so yourself?
One Cheer for Tim Kaine
A few election cycles ago, a politician I greatly admired was tapped as running mate for a nominee I did not so greatly admire. What followed was a classic example of what is commonly known as the Waffle.
Prior to accepting the vice-presidential nomination, Mr. Waffle met with the presumptive nominee to discuss their respective positions and differences, of which there were more than a few. The future vice-presidential candidate emerged from the meeting and announced to the press that, after a 45 minute-long meeting, he had been convinced to reverse his position on all points of disagreement and now, wholeheartedly, supported the nominee’s entire platform.
I’ll take my Waffle with syrup, please.
At the time, I wasn’t sure what was more disheartening: that a man I admired could so easily abandon his own convictions, or that he and his team believed it would be politically advantageous to do so. In either case, it was a sad day for integrity.
That’s why I have to tip my hat to Tim Kaine.
A Tale of Too Many Egos
This isn’t about the 2016 presidential campaign. It’s not about the candidates or the conventions; it’s not about about political ideology or the political process.
It’s all about We The People.
But that requires talking about — at least briefly — the candidates I’d rather not talk about.
Some of us had dared to hope that Donald Trump, after securing the Republican nomination, would disclose that it had all indeed been an act and that he was ready to start acting like an adult. After all, he’s a super-successful billionaire real estate mogul. And he has such great kids. Surely, he’s capable of acting presidential.
Ah, hope springs eternal.
Then the ghost of Ted Cruz reappeared. To be fair, Mr. Trump has a legitimate grievance against Mr. Cruz, who should have either endorsed his former rival or declined the invitation to speak from the convention pulpit. As a career politician, Senator Cruz must understand that the purpose of a national convention is to inspire party solidarity, not to posture for the next election cycle. Mustn’t he?
Of course, life isn’t any better in Philadelphia, where DNC head Debbie Wasserman-Schultz finally agreed to disappear into the night in exchange for one last grandstand, after she was caught exploiting her position to skew the supposedly even-handed primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton.
Not than anyone was surprised. Whatever your political bent, principles have largely become a thing of the past.
That may be because too many Americans have no notion of the values on which this country was founded: Equal opportunity, equal rights, and equal protection under the law. These do not ensure equal wealth or power. But they are part of a culture that once recognized a moral, as opposed to a legal, commitment to place the lowest rung of the ladder of fortune within reach of its most downtrodden citizens, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and to shape a society bound together by commitment to higher values and national destiny.
The Continuing Culture of Violence
I’ve had too many opportunities to repost this article. Violence begets violence, and as chaos becomes the new normal we have to find a way to restore order and civility to our societies. If we do, we can make Ft. Myers and Munich and Dallas and Boston nothing more than the names of cities once again.
https://yonasongoldson.com/2015/05/18/remembering-the-boston-bombing/
Yonason Goldson 