Conversation III: Beautiful Words

I drew some fire a while back for focusing on the tenor of a debate rather than tackling the debate itself (in the context of a debate about race), to which I responded that the thesis statement of this blog is that culture is a conversation, and the ways we have our cultural conversation about deeply important issues has gone deeply awry.

So, here's something via Andrew Sullivan:

(By the way, my favorite thing about this video is the out-of-context thumbs-up that YouTube uses as its still frame)

Three points about this video:

1. This conversation prompts not only a frank discussion about homosexuality and natural law, but actually a beautiful discussion of homosexuality and natural law. The quality of Andrew Sullivan's response is tender, and rendered beautifully. Beyond that, it is also insightful -- even though I agreed with Andrew Sullivan about homosexuality being equal to heterosexuality, its relationship to Catholicism is not one I could previously appreciate. Now, obviously, as an Athiest (but not a New Athiest, defined at NewAthiesm.org as "Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion."), I disagree with a lot of Andrew Sullivan's interpretations of Catholicism, and he still creates a lot of contradiction and tension within his beliefs, but at the same time, everyone is full of contradiction and tension. It isn't always a bad thing.
2. The question, as posited by the questioner, is insulting. He tries to diffuse it as an insult, but at the end of the day, "I love my husband = I love the Golden Gate Bridge" is precisely the ignorant insult that refuses to accept homosexuality as being, at nature, no different from heterosexuality--that demands homosexuality be different, in some way, from heterosexuality. Somewhere behind it is lurking the whole "If homosexuality, why not beastiality? Why not polygamy?" canard--so in a way, the Golden Gate Bridge analogy is only insultingly silly, not insultingly foul. But the point is, by taking the question in good faith even though it is offensive, Andrew Sullivan gets the opportunity to really, truly provide an answer, and I think we're all richer by it. Now, this doesn't mean that all homophobia should be treated with politeness and acceptance -- some people can be comfortably told to fuck off and die -- but if a question is put forward in a forum that provides for a meaningful response, we all profit by that meaningful response. The questioner may not be budged in his thinking; but the listener may be.
3. Lastly, this sort of exchange is precisely the sort of exchange that cable news and print media both, for different reasons, completely fail to capture. YouTube is, perversely, the perfect forum for spreading this kind of well-reasoned argument. In Cable News, you could see all of the factors and really hear the conversation... except these days, CNN and MSNBC couldn't possibly sit quietly for seven minutes to hear an entire conversation out without talking over both participants to shout their objections and talking points. And FOX News would clearly not even begin to engage. Print articles rarely provide transcripts -- they'd just pick out what they feel are the "right" quotations. Which would destroy the entire flow and the question and answer, the tone, and everything else that makes it impressive. I think the only other venue I get to hear a topic this well discussed would be on National Public Radio.

On The Meaning Of What We Do II

Freddie deBoer (h/t Andrew Sullivan) has this to say about Ayn Rand:

People far abler than I have prosecuted the case against Rand,

and I don't intend to rehash it here. But this tendency of her writings

and her philosophy to compel people to slap concrete on the foundation

of their own ideas, to build a moat around their intellectual life, to

categorize the whole world into the tiny fraction who are worthy and

the great horrid mass that are simply not to be listened to in any

circumstance... this is the greatest failing of the woman and her

teachings. There are a worse things to inspire people towards--

genocide, war, ethnic cleansing-- but still, a philosopher whose

greatest contribution is a vast incuriosity is a dismal thing.

Emphasis mine. What a beautiful turn of phrase, and a beautiful metric by which to judge an author's efficacy: can they really turn their prose into something concrete, through the minds of the assembled?

What's interesting about this is that it points out something to me that has always been fascinating about Ayn Rand. I find her literary style -- not just her philosophy -- to be alienating and abhorrent. I dislike the way she renders characters, and the quality of the worlds she inhabits. But I have seen her prose transform other people in ways that very, very few other fiction writers have. She really was the L Ron Hubbard of her times. Her words carry a power that, to this day, still holds people in her sway. I wish she had chosen a more positive way to make her impact.

Tyranny of the Tangible

ARTS North Carolina has an interesting and recurring question: If the Arts are such an economic driver, why is it so difficult to obtain support?

The three reasons they point to is:

• A difficulty in defining exactly what falls under the auspices of "creative industries"
• Lack of a single organization that speaks with a single voice
• No single plan for the industry

Of these three, the first one is the one that compels me the most, but I don't think any of these three get really at the heart of the problem.

Take point one: a difficulty in defining what exactly falls under the auspices of "creative industries." While this might be a difficulty for certain members of the creative industries, I don't think this is why the arts/creative industries/cultural organizations have trouble getting support. See, this is a good way to lop off the fringe organizations that might live in the gray area between arts and other things, but big central organizations like the Brooklyn Academy of Music, or the Boston Philharmonic, etc. are clearly "creative industries." Public policy makers could definitely find artists that were clearly artists if they wanted to, if the desire was there -- even if maybe sometimes those big established "clearly artists" might not be the best investment.

Take point two: I'm not necessarily sure we don't have a big organization that speaks for us. If I had to point at one, it would be Americans for the Arts. After that come some more specific trade organizations like, I dunno, the Theatre Communications Group or the National Opera Association. I don't think we have a particular lack of trade organizations. Are they ineffective? Maybe, but I don't know if we can really put the blame (or at least the whole blame) at their feet. Some trade organizations are powerful (AFL-CIO) and others are not (NACTA?).

Point three is definitely out, in my book. What industry has a clear, unified plan? Does Wall Street have a clear, unified plan? Do the automakers? There are certain industries that appear to be running around with their heads cut off but are still strongly supported.

Okay, so I shut down a bunch of ideas to the question. Why do I think that the arts are hard to get support for?

I'd say it has to do with our intangible, indirect benefits. Even when we point to the money, people still ask, "well okay, it generates money, but what does it really do? What are we really supporting here?" If we made something 100%, people would judge us based on what we make.

I think, by the way, that this is part of the whole reason entitlements are resisted before they happen, and very difficult to take away once they exist. Take this email to Andrew Sullivan's blog:

Before this year I never gave much thought to social programs, frankly, I neither needed or qualified for them. However, when the time came that I needed assistance, the government was there to help. I am extremely grateful to our President and his allies in Congress, as their policies have had an immediate and direct impact on my family. Without the MHA and Cobra subsidy, it is likely that we would have lost our home and filed for bankruptcy.

A friend of mine who is an artist recently was told by another friend that, at her income levels, she qualified for food stamps. It was a rather shocking moment for her and for us, to realize that food stamps wasn't some abstraction -- it was a fact of life. A check you could hold, make decisions around. It was suddenly reified.

We're having a difficulty reifying the arts for our audiences. People who have had moving arts experiences know that we're worth supporting. People who have not don't know what the fuss is all about.

Grassroots + Power V: Iran

I spent a lot of arts-policy-brainwork on my diversity posts earlier this week, and so now my posting brain is looking back at politics again and getting excited -- probably based on my optimism about the health care bill.

At any rate, if you haven't seen Andrew Sullivan's extensive, expert coverage of today's protests across the country of Tehran, start with this post and work your way forwards. There are a lot of posts, but most of them are fairly short. I highly suggest watching at least a few of the Youtube videos.

A couple points:

1. Mainstream media fail, per usual. One of Sullivan's readers actually points out accurately that the bigger fail is the MSM's failure to provide the context of the recent bomb attempt, inasmuch as there's basically a war going on in Yemen that we're at least tangentially involved in, against al Qaeda. If you're keeping count, that means we're fighting al Qaeda in five countries: Somalia (where US airstrikes have been supporting an Ethopian force), Yemen (where we've been supporting a largely Saudi force), Pakistan (where we've been supporting the Pakistani government), Afghanistan (directly), and a few remaining in Iraq (directly).
2. A few months ago, I found myself having anonymous comments blasting my comments on Obama's arts policy. My response was generally "meh," but I was rather insulted by the implication that I didn't understand the relationship between grass-roots and power, considering as I wrote a play about it and it's my favorite topic. So I decided to tackle the subject in a series of posts.
   
   
   What's interesting to me about this Iran thing is how it's playing out in a rather textbook example of what President Vaclav Havel wrote in his essay "Power of the Powerless." When Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn asked of the Soviet Union, "For how else can something dead pretend it is living except by erecting a scaffolding of lies?" and Vaclav Havel formulated the same idea by saying that "living in truth" was the way to dismember the state that lives on lies, they would not be surprised to see what's going on in Iran.
   
   
   I remember once in school, one of my history teachers said that the original form of democracy was the Greek Tyrants: in order to stay in power, they had to compete for the affections of the military, because without the military, they were nothing. The military were the first constituency.
   
   
   Now we see that a new tipping point has been reached in Iran. Take this video, in which the once-feared Basij have been cornered, are begging forgiveness, pleading to be released by angry protesters who shout "are you only brave on your motorcycle." Other videos involve burning Basij buildings or stealing their helmets and their sticks. They are aiming their blow right at the heart of the "Scaffolding of lies" that props up the Ayatollah: the lie that his power is absolute.
   
   
   When the protests began months ago, protesters wore masks to conceal their identity. Now, the Basij wear masks and beg to be forgiven; the protesters are the ones with the cameras.
3. My last point: if you watch any of the videos, you'll see hundreds of people with cell phones in the air, or cameras, documenting the revolution as it happens. All I want to say about that is that no single detail in this entire affair has so powerfully grounded me in feeling that the Iranian students are just like me. When I was at Barack Obama's rally before the primaries, or when I was at New Year's, it was the same thing -- the modern way we document our lives as it was happening.
   
   
   It made me realize something: when (not if) the Iranian people manage to overthrow the Ayatollah and create a more representative democracy (which may still be lead by Ayatollahs, but will be far more representative), the face of Iran is going to be transformed: it is going to become a face we recognize. We won't have to whisper between ourselves wondering exactly how insane or simply greedy their leadership is, they won't be born of a tradition and history unfathomable to us. We'll have some common experiences--we'll recognize each other. They'll still want nukes, they'll still resist our foreign policy interests, and I don't want to think about what they think about Israel. But we'll recognize them and they'll recognize us. It'll be the first step.

It's pretty exciting, and a great way to wrap up 2009. We started it with the optimism that change was coming, even in the midst of a falling economy we would have health care reform. In the middle of it, things looked bleak for health care reform as the town halls poisoned the atmosphere, but the response to the Iranian election was moving, gave us hope. Then they faded away, and I feared the worst for them. But now both have come together.

What I hope for 2010:

1. The investigation into torture yields prosecution.
2. Our troops are largely withdrawn from Iraq.
3. Guantanamo closes.
4. A review of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act by the end of the year.

I'm also hoping that California sets into motion drafting of a new constitution.

Psychology as Religion?

Vaughn says of psychology:

As identified by cognitive anthropologist Pascal Boyer, the single common feature of all religious is a preoccupation with unseen sentient beings, of which psychiatry says nothing.

In fact, mainstream psychiatry remains firmly materialist - usually re-explaining experiences that many people attribute to spirits, forces or unseen influences as biological dysfunction. So, in the most fundamental sense, the practice of psychiatry is typically contra-religious.

You could argue that this is 'replacing' religion through colonising the spiritual sphere of explanation, but this makes it no more a religion than physics or evolutionary biology.

Andrew Sullivan responds with two words:

Sigmund Freud.

A better example from the psychiatric model might be Jacques Lacan, with his "Big Other." At any rate, I think that Pascal Boyer's definition of religion is deeply flawed, as is evinced by Vaughn's and Sullivan's differing interpretations as to how it applies. Because "preoccupation with an unseen being" is a statement of content; religion, on the other hand, is a definition of 'form.'

I don't think religion is necessarily preoccupied with an unseen being. I happen to think that a religion is whenever you take a philosophical standpoint (it could be Boyer's "unseen person" but doesn't have to be), entrench it in a hierarchy with a codified dogma. That is what separates "spirituality" from "religion"; spirituality being a branch of philosophy (beliefs about the structure of the universe--content).

Psychiatry clearly doesn't qualify as a religion under that structure; there are (arguably) no universal "dogmas" and there certainly isn't a heirarchy, per se (the American Association of Psychiatrists or what have you don't really qualify). It is, like science, an empirical branch of philosophy (beliefs about the structure of the universe).

A Defense Of Snark

In the vein of Alphacat, Andrew Sullivan has posted Roger Ebert:

Snarking is cultural vandalism. I have arrived at this conclusion belatedly. I have been guilty of snarking, and of enjoying snarks. In the matter of snarking, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But it has grown entirely out of hand. It is time to put away childish things. I must restore my balance, view the world in a fair way, hope to inspire more appreciation than ridicule. No doubt there will always be a role for snarking, given the proper target and an appropriate venue, and I reserve the right to snark when it is deserved, as in certain movie reviews. But in general I must become more well-behaved.

I responded:

Roger Ebert is against snark. You've quoted him saying that snark is "vandalism." Well, he's close. Snark is street art. It's graffiti. It's something anyone can do, with little more than a release of pent-up air, and it transforms whatever you put it on. If you take any boring, functional building, and introduce some snark, it will look different. If you're bad at it--you're just doing it to ruin a bit of property and put your own name, to claim a mark on your target, to prove your own superiority--then it's petty vandalism. It lowers the value of the property and makes the community uglier.

But Ebert is overlooking the wonderful world of good snark. A carefully crafted bit of snark, used in just the right way, can change the world. Think of Banksy's better works; some snark beautifies the community, some carries a strong political message. This is valuable snark, and I hope Mr. Ebert recognizes its role in our society. What would Oscar Wilde have been without his snark? When Winston Churchill heard his opponent saying, "If I were your wife, I'd poison your tea," he had the good sense to snark back, "If you were my wife, I'd drink it." He didn't say, "Well that's an upsetting statement" or some boring, unsnarky rejoinder. And thank God for that! Jon Stewart out there may be snarking, but his Pulitzers attest to the fact that you can snark the day away and still be providing a valuable service.

But there is a trade-off. How does one become witty and snarky, if one doesn't practice? Jon Stewart is the first to admit, he was a terrible stand-up comedian. As a matter of fact, if you go back in the archives and look at Jon Stewart's Daily Show in 2000, there's a lot more of the bad kind of snark--the petty vandalism of cheap jokes. But he learned on the job, and nowadays he can snark with the best of them. He snarked "Crossfire" off the air, and that's a public service to us all.

As a resident of New York City, I sympathize with your desire not to see that petty vandalism. But I put forward to you that some snark artists are quite worth waiting for. To be sure, there's much more bad snark than good snark. But there's much more bad painting than good painting, much more bad television than good television, and many more bad blogs than good blogs.

Proposition 8's Court Battle

One of Andrew Sullivan's readers wrote:

At the Calif. Supreme Court hearings today, I saw the lowest of the lows: A pro-Prop 8 protester proudly wielding a hand-written poster which read, "Dan White: Hero For Killing A Queer."

Not much commentary or reaction I can provide you. I was rendered mute.

This is another reason I disagree with Sullivan on the subject of whether the court should decide against Prop 8. How will the man who is holding that poster feel when the Court agrees with him that there's no constitutional reason why gays should be allowed to marry? He's going to believe that his movement has chalked up another victory, that the government is on his side--perhaps he'll feel that God has blessed him with that victory, or that his presence as a threatening force has helped persuade to government in their decision.

Of course, that's aside from my main reason why I disagree--because I think proposition 8 is a travesty before the face of the Constitution, and that no court should have the temerity to believe that such a law is constitutional.

The GOP Civil War

David Frum, Via Andrew Sullivan:

A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

I've been hearing allegations of a coming GOP civil war, but I had a feeling that it wouldn't go that way. I didn't think there were any high-profile Republicans left who would take on the way that the behemoth of the GOP was currently headed.

During the primary season, there were four voices who I thought would give an opportunity.

The first was Ron Paul. He was a revival of good ol'fashion Fiscal Conservatism. Granted, he goes way overboard with all of his policies--his noninterventionism is a welcome change from Bush's empire building, but strays far too far into the Hoover Era, as does his fiscal policy. But he gave a cohesive platform, one which excited young conservatives for the first time--and then was promptly quashed by a vengeful GOP.

The second was John McCain, who promised to return balance and accountability to the conservative party. But Bill Kristol brought Sarah Palin to his attention, and quickly his campaign fell under her power, and the Limbaugh-effect set in.

The third was Mike Huckabee. He returned to the good ol' fashion Evangelical Republicanism that proved to be the difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore (who, by the way, is a deeply religious man, or so I've heard). And throughout the campaign, he spoke with a civility and grace that, while hiding a hopelessly backwards outlook on gay rights, climate change, and everything else. Then he decided that Obama was equal to Lenin or Stalin at CPAC, demonstrating that apparently Rush Limbaugh has him by the testicles too.

And the fourth was Bobby Jindal, who was being touted as a smart, bipartisan, Republican answer to Barack Obama. And if you saw his response to the non-SOTU address, it turned out that it was reasonable, conservative, and shallow as a kiddy pool.

But up until now, the "civil war" that was touted didn't seem to come. McCain staffers took out their irritation on Sarah Palin, but other than that, she returned to her position as Governor, and continues to be a presence in the party. At CPAC, it was clear that there wasn't a politician with a backbone who was willing to go against Rush Limbaugh--a few in Congress who voiced doubts were kicked in the ass mightily, one assumes by the Minority Whip or others like him.

Well, at least David Frum is putting his voice into the ring. But the problem is that he's not a politician. This isn't going to be a true GOP civil war until the GOP gets a serious candidate to take others to the mat. The high-profile Republicans in politics who've dissented have largely dissented because of their lack of aspiration to continue--Schwarzenegger, who likely will not win a seat in the Senate, and Crist, who seems happy where he is right now--or have done so at the cost of their political future--Specter, whose current polling indicates that he, like Senator Lincoln Chaffee, is on his way out the door due to excessive moderation (the right feels betrayed and the left has their own candidate).

Let's see if this gathers any steam from the actual power-brokers in the GOP. Otherwise, this is just noise in the echo chamber.

Non-Profit Recession News 1: Donations

Via Andrew Sullivan:

I work for a small, 5-year old non-profit arts organization in Illinois. A couple of our usual big donors have indicated we should be prepared for smaller donations this year, and possibly none in the next couple of years. The are mentioning Obama's tax plans and their need to save money now in anticipation of that. A lot of my colleagues in the not-for-profit world are really scared right now, and we are not happy with Obama. We hear the rhetoric that the government is going to have a reserve to give to non-profits that will make up for some of the lost donations, but the fact is, we have never received federal aid, and likely never would (assuming the organization could even make it that far). Organizations are going to be killed under Obama's plan. I may have voted myself out of a job, and voted a whole community of kids out of art-making opportunities. Frankly, this sucks.

My response (directed to Andrew Sullivan):

I sympathize with your reader who feels that non-profits are going to suffer under Obama's tax plan. One would assume that higher taxes might make people more inclined to find a non-profit to donate to (wasn't that the whole model that non-profit tax deduction is based around?). I myself am just starting a non-profit theater, and the atmosphere here in New York City is one of fear. Foundations will be awarding less, donors will be giving less, large corporate sponsors may be backing out of the charitable world(Washington Mutual in Seattle, other big fish in New York City). But on the other hand, this is only a part of Obama's potential to effect us. After all, if his universal health care plan goes over, then the cost of doing business for non-profits will shift, to a large degree, to the Government. And that money will be coming from the rich--our potential donors, and those who potentially wouldn't donate. The artists who work for us won't have to worry about health care--that does a lot for their long term security working the field.

Obama also gives us the opportunity to change our fundraising models. Rather than plying wealthy donors to give large chunks of money, perhaps we can raise a lot more small donations. In New York City, the Lung Cancer Foundation launched a campaign called "You Are One In A Million." They want 1 million people to give $20, rather than the old fundraising model that looks more like twenty people giving $1 million. Like Obama's, getting smaller donations from more people ensures that we're relying on community outreach rather than wealthy connection to be moving forward; and that's both closer to our missions as non-profits, and more sustainable for the future.

I still think we're going to come out on top from Obama's intervention.

Coyne Defends Dawkins; I Dissent

Jeff Coyne on the attempt to reconcile science and religion.

Andrew Sullivan picks Coyne's the money quote:

[S]ome theologians with a deistic bent seem to think that they speak for all the faithful. These were the critics who denounced Dawkins and his colleagues for not grappling with every subtle theological argument for the existence of God, for not steeping themselves in the complex history of theology. Dawkins in particular was attacked for writing The God Delusion as a "middlebrow" book. But that misses the point. He did indeed produce a middlebrow book, but precisely because he was discussing religion as it is lived and practiced by real people. The reason that many liberal theologians see religion and evolution as harmonious is that they espouse a theology not only alien but unrecognizable as religion to most Americans.

Jeff Coyne is correct in stating that Richard Dawkins and other New Athiests write "middle-brow" books because of the common, uncultured religion (if you see Bill Maher's movie Religulous you'll see what sort of religious people are really the target). But those who argue on behalf of a more cultured, philosophical, "high-brow" religion are not arguing in vain. You see, if Dawkins was targeting only fundamentalists, or only the ignorant religious, or only a specific segment of religion, then Coyne's objection would be an adequate defense.

But in my readings of Dawkins (this is actually more true of Hitchens but still seems true of Dawkins) it seems to me that for Dawkins, religion is inherently destructive; that religion is always delusional, that it always fosters hatred and dischord. And if they are trying to argue that all religion is damaging, hateful, etc., then they will have to come to grips with the fact that there are some very smart, reasoned, subtle, liberal traditions of religion as well. Otherwise, what Dawkins is arguing against when he targets religion and religious education is not stupidity, closemindedness, and bigotry inherent in religion, but stupidity, closemindedness, and bigotry that is attached to religion by the human beings who interpret it. The same stupidity, closemindedness, and bigotry that can manifest itself in nationalism (again: Obama's nationalism is not the same as Bush's nationalism) or even economic theory (as Communism/Capitalism proved).

Either Dawkins is targeting religion as a whole, and therefore needs to defend his argument against the intellectual elite of religion, or else he is only targeting ignorant religion, and therefore the burden of proof lies on him to prove that it is religion, and not ignorance.

(I'll quote it again, from Albert Camus:)

The narrator is inclined to think that by attributing overimportance to the praiseworthy actions one may, by implication, be paying indirect but potent homage to the worse side of human nature. For this attitude implies that such actions shine out as rare exceptions, while callousness and apathy and the general rule. The narrator does not share this view. The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. On the whole, men are more good than bad; that, however, isn't the real point. But they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance that fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill. The soul of the murderer is blind; and there can be no true goodness nor true love without the utmost clearsightedness.

Doubt And Certainty

I saw Doubt, which is based on John Patrick Shanley's play. I was bitter at the time that Shanley's play won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize over my personal favorite, Thom Pain (Based On Nothing). I'm not as sure anymore. I think that Thom Pain (Based On Nothing) has a much more intricate use of the English. Will Eno's play reaches a level of finely crafted prose that, in my humble opinion, reaches William Shakespeare in terms of the beauty, simplicity, and high emotion.

But. On the other hand, Doubt is a play that is clearly going straight into the canon. It has that perfect balance of well-crafted writing, fascinating characters, and ambiguous interpretation that will allow each person who performs in it and each director who directs it to leave their own stamp and interpretation.

Anyways, my point was not to review the movie. I'm not even going to bang on about how disappointing it was to me to see John Patrick Shanley make additions for the screen that showed he didn't have faith that his play would transmit on the screen--blunt visual metaphors inserted into the scenes in a bit of a ham-fisted way, including that Hollywood cliche where there's a storm during the climax and dramatic lines are punctuated by thunder.

But anyways, the conflict of two stubborn people with a backdrop of religion actually made me reflect on the morality of doubt, as one of Andrew Sullivan's readers wrote in response (I quoted it and reacted in A Cogent Comment On War). The context there was the War in Gaza. I used the morality of doubt to talk about the morality of knowledge.

Watch the movie, and while you're watching it, think about Gaza. That's all I'm saying.

A Cogent Comment On War

One of Andrew Sullivan's many surprisingly astute readers responds to the Gaza War with an interesting philosophical discussion:

The problem with the doctrine of Just War, I would submit, is that it can only be applied in retrospect. In prospect, it is at once too restrictive and overly permissive. It requires an unachievable degree of certainty. But when leaders or their population nevertheless convince themselves that a conflict meets its standards, even though it cannot, it tends to grant them a sense of moral absolution that leads to callous indifference to the loss of human life.

No, the Israeli assault on Gaza cannot be said to be Just. Declaring it to be so is a manifestation of moral cowardice, of an unwillingness to face up to its awful price. It is merely a war: a messy, dirty conflict that injures all who are involved. It will exact a terrible toll on soldiers, militants and civilians, and there is no possible set of justifications which should blind us to that fact.

But that does not necessarily mean it merits moral condemnation. It does not mean that Israel was necessarily wrong to launch it, nor wrong to finish it. Those judgments tend to become clear only with the virtue of hindsight.

Take Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon. In its first week, many saw that invasion as justified. By the time it ended, it was widely viewed as a catastrophic, destructive, and unnecessary fight. Now, after two years utterly devoid of violence along the northern border, some are more ambivalent. If the conflict resumes where it left off, it will reconfirm its futility. But if Hezbollah and Israel arrive at a modus vivendi, it will be seen as having been the necessary precursor to peace. How are you supposed to know such a thing before you commit to fight, when years after the last shot, the consequences of the conflict remain unclear? Think of it, if you will, as a morality of doubt.

I am equally suspicious of the rectitude of those who unequivocally support this conflict as I am of those who sweepingly condemn it. The future is uncertain. The four conditions of the Catechism each point us in the right direction, and correctly suggest that the burden of proof must always rest with those who would resort to force. But three of the four demand absolute certitude: that the damage be "certain"; that "all means" be shown to be ineffective; and that it "must not" produce greater evils. Anyone who pretends to be able to answer these questions in the affirmative in advance of conflict is either a liar or a fool. No damage is ever certain, all means are never exhausted, and we never know in advance what toll a conflict will exact.

You have eloquently expressed your skepticism that the Israeli assault on Hamas will be seen, in retrospect, to have crossed these thresholds. I continue to believe that, if it meets its objective of clearing the way for a renewed ceasefire that is viable over the long term, it may well prove to have been justified. But I would be the first to admit that I am uncertain. I simply do not know what will happen.

The rhetoric that you and I find most abhorrent is spouted by those who experience no doubt, who see no uncertainty. It is dangerous. It lowers the threshold to initiate conflict, and leads to brutality after its onset. But the answer is not to identify a standard that would endow us with certainty; it is to recognize that certainty is always elusive, and to humble ourselves before that conclusion.

This post has calmed me down in a strange way. The certitude beforehand, the knowledge of right and wrong, is what is objectionable.

My own moral guidance has come from a passage of Albert Camus' The Plague:

The narrator is inclined to think that by attributing overimportance to the praiseworthy actions one may, by implication, be paying indirect but potent homage to the worse side of human nature. For this attitude implies that such actions shine out as rare exceptions, while callousness and apathy and the general rule. The narrator does not share this view. The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. On the whole, men are more good than bad; that, however, isn't the real point. But they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance that fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill. The soul of the murderer is blind; and there can be no true goodness nor true love without the utmost clearsightedness.

The IDF fancies it knows everything, and therefore claims for itself the right to kill. Hamas fancies it knows everything, and therefore claims for itself the right to kill.



The reason I bring this up is not so much to comment on Israel-Gaza, but rather to comment on how Bush's legacy may one day be restored by what happens in Iraq.

The way this standard examines responsibility for war (namely: its effects) may be kind to Bush. After all, now that we have this war, everyone is working their asses off to figure out how to salvage it. If, twenty years down the line, a mixture of our policy, international aid, and the hardwork of Iraqis manages to salvage the current levels of insanity, then President Bush will have been judged of having the foresight.

To a certain extent, you can argue that this is true. At the same time, you do need to judge the quality of the choice at the time. But I suppose President Bush is different than this, because even knowing what we knew at the time, we didn't have even a reasonable amount of evidence to go into war. And yet it was put forward with that same damaging certainty that the reader talks about.

It reminds me of why I told my suitemate I don't carry a gun for self-defense: because carrying a gun means you're going to make a choice at some point whether another person lives or dies. And I don't think I'll ever be that certain.

I've talked previously about the standards for war. The Powell Doctrine's strength, I believe, is that it gives an excellent benchmark to remain certain about war. After all, Clinton's interventions in Somalia and in Kosovo had roughly the same rationale--a few important practical elements were different, though, and that proved to be the difference between failure and success.

Inspired By Andrew Sullivan: Awards!

I'm a big fan of Andrew Sullivan's blog, so in the coming year, I'm going to hold my own little miniature awards ceremony over the course of the year. So, after thinking for a bit, I'm coining these following awards to be looking for in the near future. A lot of these are hyphenated because I couldn't choose between two people to name the award after. Obviously, this year's winners are the people who gave the name to the award--retroactively honoring people from years past, as well as for this year.

JEFFERSON-CUNNINGHAM AWARD--The award for the grossest example of sheer greed and corruption. It needs to be something cartoonishly corrupt, and just lacking in any artifice. If you laundered the money, it doesn't count. It needs to be a yacht or just money stuffed in your freezer.

BLAGOJEVICH-SPITZER AWARD--This is not just an award for gross corruption; this is an award for brazen, Greco-tragic hubris, with a touch of dramatic irony. Kudos points to being convicted on your birthday, to have your downfall be exactly what you fought so hard to prevent, or wonderful soundbites like "Go ahead, tap my phones," or "It sucks. I used to be Governor of New York." Try to quote Kipling while protesting your innocence, or--please--get your wife to stand next to you while you apologize to the public for cheating on your wife.

CRAMER AWARD--Not just the clumsiness of Kramer, the hapless neighbor from Seinfeld: this is when you are in a position where people are relying on you to predict the future, and you fail. Not like, a little bit. I'm talking "epic fail." Like telling people who want to pull out of Bear Stearns that they're stupid, only to have Bear Sterns collapse six days later.

CHENEY-BURESS AWARD--Did you just say that? Did that just happen? The Vice President simply could not have shot an old man in the face. What? The old man apologized? Wait, did you just shoot yourself in the leg with a gun? It was tucked into your sweat pants, you say? I simply refuse to believe that these events happened. Also: there's a pair of shoes that bear this award well.

RUMSFELD-BUSH AWARD--For astounding lack of empathy. Did you tell the people of New Orleans that you're going to rebuild Trent Lott's house? Is Iraq not on fire if you fly over it? "Stuff happens" sound familiar to you? Then you might be in line for a Rumsfeld-Bush Award!

CHAMBLISS AWARD--When I told my roommate that there was a politician who accused his opponent for being soft on crimes against children, when that opponent had championed tougher laws against crimes against children because his child had been kidnapped, and that the same politician had accused another opponent of being unpatriotic when that opponent had left limbs behind in Vietnam... my roommate said, "Well, I'll say one thing about this guy. He doesn't want to make things easy for himself. He really like to fight those uphill battles." So the Chambliss Award is intended for those who demonstrate fantastically self-destructive (and ironic) tactics, whether it's putting Joe The Plumber on the campaign trail, or letting Joe The Biden open his mouth.

FINLEY AWARD--Sometimes Free Speech means that someone is going to do something stupid or derogatory and call it art. They'll use "anything can be art" as a free pass to say "everything is art." They'll say that form is unimportant, education is unimportant (while drawing salary as a teacher). They'll mock people who don't agree with them as stupid. These people are what gives theater a bad name.

And now for the positive awards:

SHINSEKI-FISHBACK AWARD--It's really depressing that sometimes the greatest heroism is telling the truth. Ian Fishback was concerned that Donald Rumsfeld's statements to the public about torture misrepresented the actions that were occuring to people in custody. When the chain of command failed him, he wrote a letter to John McCain that laid forth his moral objections. Shinseki, at the opposite end of the food chain, was called before Congress in the run-up to the Iraq War. When asked how many troops we'd need, he said several hundred thousand. He was promptly fired. Years later, General Abizaid said, "Upon reflecting, General Shinseki was probably right." Oops. At least we have these people to tell us what's what.

FITZGERALD AWARD--For stunning, non-partisan service. It's very hard to treat both sides of the debate equally because, well, they're not. But if within a few years you take down a high profile Republican and a high profile Democrat, it's clear that you're of the rare breed that sees both sides of the aisle equally. You're there to do your job. Politics be damned.

FEINGOLD AWARD--Opposition to the PATRIOT Act is something that most Congressmen from the left espouse, so much so that you might forget that they all voted for it. Except one man: Russ Feingold. Read his last speech, faced with 96 US Senators who were about to vote the other way. Sometimes it's not easy to be the only guy facing the other way. But history has proven that Feingold's concerns about the PATRIOT Act were not unfounded.

DAISEY-EUSTIS AWARD-- Theater is a broken system in America. It has a lot of problems, whether we're talking about poor pay and job stability for actors or the growing tendency to remount old productions rather than looking for new work. Whether you're a dissident like Mike Daisey asking the hard questions about Theater's future, or an insightful champion of the new generation of talent like Oskar Eustis, it takes gumption to set out there to change the world of theater.

RUSSERT-SULLIVAN AWARD-- It's easy for a news story to fall through the cracks, and unless you've got Lewis Black to catch them for his own segment called "Back In Black," these things can fall away in the ephemeral world of modern news. Whether its torture, or Palin's baby, Andrew Sullivan has a memory like an elephant, and doesn't let things get away. Russert was the same way: he kept his eye on the issues, and (though polite) asked the hard, smart questions. What they share (usually) is a sense of perspective, and a dogged determination to uncover the truth.



Those are the twelve awards. Next year, who'll be on that list? We'll see.

Health Care Kerfufle II

Ezra Klein continues:

In concert with Andrew's thesis, Britain does indeed have a high rate of amenable deaths. Just not higher than ours. in 2002-2003, Britain suffered 102.81 amenable deaths per 100,000, citizens. America suffered 109.65. This doesn't totally eviscerate Andrew's assertion of cultural difference. It may be that Brits believe they should endure that many preventable deaths while Americans don't believe that but have such a bad health care system that they nevertheless beat out the Brits. But either way, the difference between the American and British health care systems is not that we are enjoying timely and lifesaving interventions while they are forgoing them.

Emphasis mine; the statistics are the most important thing.

In fact, it proves Sullivan's hypothesis that the British are willing to put up with bad healthcare more than Americans. But clearly, Americans would only revolt against the British Healthcare system at a slightly less urgent rate than they're revolting against the current system.

But if Andrew Sullivan praises our right to demand better healthcare, then he shouldn't be surprised that we want to radically change our system. After all, the countries with bigger declines in the amenable death rate are countries like Japan, France, and Australia. If our choice--i.e. the free market--were really improving our healthcare system, then why wouldn't our health rate be continuing to fall?

Second point, from The Reaction:

Consider the following from the MinnPost:

UnitedHealth to sell insurance policies that insure individuals against becoming uninsurable


This links to the following at The New York Times:

UnitedHealth to Insure the Right to Insurance

Basically, health insurance has proven so reliable at falling through for those who need it, that Americans are lining up to insure themselves from insurers.

Health Care Kerfuffle

An interesting thread of conversation came up between Ezra Klein, Andrew Sullivan, and Gershom Gorenberg about the merits and drawbacks of socialized healthcare.

One of the commenters in Ezra Klein's blog referred to the Andrew Sullivan post I linked to above and said that Andrew Sullivan was comparing "the US healthcare system as experienced by Andrew Sullivan to the UK healthcare system as experienced by Andrew Sullivan." To a certain extent, both Andrew Sullivan and Gershom Gorenberg are speaking about their own personal experiences, and how it has affected their opinions toward socialization of healthcare; Sullivan is responding to the UK, and Gorenberg is responding to Israel.

But in Sullivan's other post on the subject, he does point out that Ezra Klein's opinion polls aren't necessarily a better indicator of whether British-style healthcare is better for us than US-style medical industry (I refuse to call it "healthcare" but it is a medical industry). He's right that different countries respond to different systems differently.

But I disagree that Americans living under the NHS would have a revolution instantly. Certainly, I know many Americans who would be extremely frustrated with the healthcare system; that is because I know many people who can afford healthcare under the current system. But for those people who I know who can't afford the healthcare system, the choice between a nationalized healthcare system and no health care at all can't even really be called a choice. It was summed up for me when John McCain said, when asked about his skin cancer, that like most Americans he consulted with his oncologist about the issue. There are many Americans (I don't know if it's a majority or not) don't even have their own GP--they get a doctor when it is direly important, because they can't afford anything else.

But I do agree with you that the NHS is not what we should be looking for. In Ezra's post "The Canada/England Fallacy" he lays out a pretty good argument for not pursuing the British Model: because we shouldn't have a system that disallows those who can seek better health-care to do so. You, Andrew, probably have enough money to get better healthcare for your family than that which the NHS provided you. And so you should. But those who can't afford any healthcare at all--and whose privatized healthcare, if they could afford it, would probably treat them equally as poorly--should have something.

The state of postage in the United States (and other nations in the world) is similar. A government-run entity (USPS) is good for non-urgent mail, and can send registered mail and packages if you want it to. But other private companies (UPS and FedEx) compete with the government-run entity. If the USPS completely failed to provide any worthwhile service, it would eventually collapse--but I use the USPS all the time for letters, and for packages I tend to use UPS.

I'm aware of the pitfalls of socialized medicine. I was born in Israel, where my parents had lived for many years, and it has its own socialized medicine. My parents are ambivalent about socialized medicine; when they were young and poor, they got healthcare that they might not have gotten without its existence. But my oldest brother was born while my mother was not anaesthetized, because the nursing staff at the hospital attempted to give her the run-around because the anaesthesiologist had taken the day off. My grandfather had many troubles with his heart, and spending time waiting for cardiologists to have the time to address him was difficult.

Still, at the end of the day, this issue should be decided on economic models, on a more scientific approach to addressing what methods are most effective for the most amount of people. We want people with a lot of resources to have the best healthcare possible, and people with no resources to have the most healthcare possible. The top should be unfettered; the bottom should be supported.

More About Language

I was exchanging a few emails with a friend of mine, and at a certain point she was grasping for a word to describe a complex emotion she was feeling. "I wish there was a word for it" she said.

I kind of don't. Neologisms are fine--I'm rather a fan of them sometimes, especially if they're witty--but I have been thinking about how we speak about our emotions lately, and I've got a bit of a bone to pick.

Sometimes it is nice to have a label at our hands, but we Americans have a tendency to like to label that I'm starting to get really uncomfortable with. Not just really damaging labels, like "anti-American" or "terrorist," but even labels like "family values," "pro-life," "pro-choice," etc. Not all these labels are political of course, but right now, that's what's on my mind. "In love" or "out of love," "happy" or "sad."

To a certain degree, a symbol is always reductionist. "Liberty" is something we can all agree on; the face of liberty is more complex. Politicians sense that, and that's why political speech basically trades on symbols. But art, too, has been trading on symbolism to a certain extent. And we do in our lives. "How are you doing?" "Fine." What does "fine" really tell you about your state of life?

I think we need to start describing. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it's the elaborated phrase that sinks to the depths of character. Two words reveal a level of nuance that one alone simply can't.

Sometimes, I think, the urge not to explain things is a fear of wasting other people's time, or a fear of sharing too much. That's fear. Sometimes that fear is justified. But when we are talking with those we know and love, those we feel safe with, we shouldn't keep the habit of poor speech.


A second thought about language and emotion: I was in my Czech language class today, and we were talking about how in Czech, you "have" fear as opposed to English, where you "are" afraid. Many European languages are constructed similarly. What I like about that construction is that it allows you to operate independently of your emotion, without denying it.

Think about what it means to be afraid. That in that instant, you equal fear. After all, if you think about what function "to be" serves in a sentence, its an equation. I am afraid. It's more than an attribute: it's a state of being; it is said to define me in that moment. Who is he? He is afraid.

Instead, European languages make your emotion a separate entity. It exists separately. Perhaps that separate entity is inside of you (filling you up with emotion, perhaps) but it does not take you over. I was struck by Andrew Sullivan, describing his relationship to marriage, and the implication that his entire private life was swallowed up by his emotion; and because that emotion was condemned, his whole private life went inward. I sympathize with that.

Casting that emotion that exists but does not define may be an empowering way to deal with it. I'm sure psychologists agree. But do linguists?

Side note: it also reminds me of when we were in Spain, and my brother pointed out that in Spanish it isn't "I lost the camera," it's "The camera was lost by me." The event happened. The culprit is at the end of the sentence. You could, easily, say "the camera was lost" without self-implicating, without making it sound a little odd. I have often by chastised for using the passive voice. I think the passive voice is not always bad grammar. You just have to use it wisely.

Open Letter To The Conservative Minds

Hello to the Conservative Minds of America;

Hello to Christopher Buckley--(loved Thank You for Smoking!), hello to Kathleen Parker, hello to Andrew Sullivan, hello to David Frum and David Brooks. I'm addressing this to you because in recent weeks, a divide has come between you and the Republican Party. The real source of this break is Sarah Palin, and some of you have observed that the Republican Party has left you, rather than you having left it.

The news this week, written in the Times and in your blogs and all over the media-sphere, is that you all have broken with McCain-Palin '08, and for that you are the target of your party's vitriol and attack. Conservative minded papers are breaking with McCain-Palin 08, turning Democrat for the first time since 1964. So the question remains: where now for you all?

Many triumphant liberals have taken it that you have endorsed Obama-Biden. Some of you have. Some of you have said that you're not going to vote. I certainly haven't heard anyone endorsing Bob Barr, but that's not surprising--after all, you're smart conservatives and a "Libertarian" who voted for the PATRIOT Act is no more appealing to you than the current McCain Palin ticket. But the question remains: where now for you all?

It's interesting that the date 1964 is the last time the Republican Party has been torn apart like this. Admittedly, I wasn't alive them, but from my reading of history, it appears that that was the date that "conservative" Republicans seemed to take the ball from "moderate" Republicans, as they were labelled in those days. That was when Barry Goldwater took the nomination, over Governor Rockefeller's brigades (note that there was a Romney in that primary too, as pointless as that trivium is). When Reagan won in 1980, George Will wrote:

It took 16 years to count the votes [of the 1964 election], and Goldwater won.

But Barry Goldwater was a libertarian on social issues, after all, he said:

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

We've got a party that, on certain issues, falls to the right of Barry Goldwater. We've got a problem, and you all know that. The step to the right that Barry Goldwater started, and the step to the right again that Ronald Reagan took, is becoming a step too far. But you all know that, that's why I'm writing you this email.

I'm just begging one thing of you: don't let the Party leave you.

You all are the brightest of the Conservative movement, the ones who give it brains and sophistication. A party which hates the elite is deliberately dumbing itself down as fast as it can, so that it can't provide any meaningful solutions, or counterbalance to the Democrats. That's why they need you, even if they don't know it yet.

You can't give up. The fate of the country needs you.

The Democratic Party needs you, just as much as the Republican Party needs you, and almost as much as the American Public needs you (as much as they'll scream that they don't). You see, intellectual rigor improves everybody. When Democrats are right, they'll be able to prove it in a field of difficult discussion. When they are wrong, they won't be able to get by while being wrong. And the same should work vice versa. Constructive criticism is the most important social function that we can exercise as citizens. I have full faith that you won't stop. But right now, just criticism isn't enough.

Bill Kristol created this Sarah Palin monster. The fringe of the Republican Party is very good at getting attention; for their allies, they appeal to the base instincts of fear and greed and get them excited. For their enemies, they also appear to fear: fear of what their opponents could become in power. Sarah Palin gets a large share of attention because her insane, nativist rants against the "other" are far more 'interesting' than intelligent discussion on the merits and drawbacks of nationalizing the banking system. Not just to the huddled masses who she's playing to, but even to us intelligent people: we may agree or disagree with various policies, but Palin hits us right where we hurt: a vision of what politics could be if we don't fight this right now.

So what are you going to do, Conservative Minds? Might I make a suggestion? Find the anti-Palin. Go out there, look at Conservatives. Find someone you respect. And put them forward. We've noticed Barack Obama's quiet and calm demeanor. He launched himself into the public eye in the Primary by being loud and eloquent. But some Republicans out there might be quiet and calm all the time. They're not going to get much face time. Start making their names known.

Who do you look up to in the Republican Party? Do you see any rising stars? I've heard a few names thrown around; Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, for instance; or older figures like Senator Olympia Snowe. Get them involved. Contact them for statements. Light a fire under their ass, and make them take back the party.

The Republican Party can't keep moving right forever. If they lose more and more people, there won't be a Republican Party. The next time the Republican Party has a Presidential Primary, they're going to need someone to do what Barack Obama did for us in the Democratic Party: to show us a respectable future, a future that we as party members can be proud of.

And Barack Obama's creation as a figure on the national stage is not an accident. Somebody noticed him, among all the other freshmen senators, and decided to make him keynote the 2004 Democratic Convention. That's when I first heard him. And when he said that night that there aren't Red States and Blue States, but rather these United States, I knew that I had a future in the Democratic Party that wasn't Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, both of whom I dislike and would prefer not to be represented by. In fact, I didn't self-identify as Democrat until Barack Obama had won the primary. It might be hard for you all to call yourselves Republican until you have another Ronald Reagan to make you proud to be Republicans (or for Mr. Sullivan, another Margaret Thatcher).

It's going to be difficult. Many people are going to want to style themselves as the second-coming. If McCain-Palin loses, Palin's career will most likely be over; it's rare for a defeated VP candidate to make a convincing Presidential candidate later on, especially since if this election plays out the way it looks like it's going now, she's going to wind up shouldering the blame. Every Conservative who has turned against McCain Palin has been vocal about citing her selection as a turning point in their lack of support, and if part of the core of conservatism blames her, it'll be easy to see her negative effect on the election. So she'll be out.

Who's going to represent you in 2012?

What are you going to do about 2010? Where are the Congressmen to send back to Congress? Every few weeks we hear about abuse of power and sexual misconduct from Congressmen. They continue to cater to President Bush's agenda. They don't represent the future of the Republican Party. Who will?

That's your challenge for the next several years. These issues are too important for you all to withdraw, to say that the Republican Party has left you behind, and to just sit back and wait until someone does come along. It's up to you to construct the party of the Big Tent once more.

Yours,

Guy Yedwab

P.S. Just don't remake your party too well. I still want liberals to run the country!