On The Meaning Of What We Do III, Haiti Pt. 2

A few days ago I started ruminations on a project that's going on at my university about Haiti, and its tragedy. I wondered where exactly the difference between the historical and the present day, about the immediacy of the pain.

Scott Walters places the project in context:

If you want to look for the precursor to this assignment, look no further than Anna Deavere Smith. She was interviewing people in LA not long after the riots. And what you are being asked to do, I suspect, is what Smith describes as her technique in the article "The Word Becomes You," and interview in The Drama Review, Winter 1993. Her belief is that if you listen and listen to someone speaking, and gradually begin to imitate them fully, that "the word will become you" -- that the emotion is contained within the words, the inflections, the phrasing and can be sort of channeled powerfully.

I can't speak to how Twilight was received and the emotional tenor of how people felt watching it in the immediacy of the Los Angeles Riots, because I was (I must confess) 4 years old at the time. By the time I reached the age to interface with Twilight, the Los Angeles Riots had become a historical event -- at least in the minds of the public. Attempts to continue performing Twilight, reading Twilight, etc. serves a different purpose: to return to the immediate something which is historical.

There is a good reason to revisit the past, to make the inaccessible accessible. See, today in 2010, the grief process has taken place over the Los Angeles riots and has left us at the end of the process: acceptance. To attempt to revisit the Los Angeles riots serves the purpose of the returning to the mind an event which may think is over, but is not yet over, to bring the lessons from that past event to the fore.

This is not, however, the purpose of the Haiti project. Scott is right to say that the aim of the project is to let "the words become us." But the question is, to what cause, let the words become us?

We don't have any lessons to share from Haiti. We still don't know what's going on. It would be like trying to tell Matthew Shepard's story while he's still in a coma. The only thing we know is the brutality and the pain of the event. Food is only just starting to be distributed. We haven't had the time to speak to the Haitians, to really understand -- we can only snatch bits of their screams and present that as something. (as I'm typing this, a Save the Children call for help ad is playing on Hulu again)

Which brings me to the question Scott presented me with:

By the way, I would sort of question an actor who was afraid of experiencing emotion too powerfully. Isn't that what you do?

Oddly enough, this brings me back to the subject of self-producing that's been in the air lately. When I first came to NYU, I was definitely not a producer. I was not yet a director or a playwright, I came to be an actor. But slowly I noticed something that really, really pissed me off: actors bitching about how much they hated their plays. It was seriously wide-spread. You'd see an actor auditioning for Tommy, and I'd say, "Oh, you want to be in Tommy?" and they'd say, "No, I don't really like that play." "Well why do you want to audition, then?" "Well, I need to do a musical" or whatever the reasoning was.

I didn't want to be in plays I had no passion for. I didn't want to just read the lines that someone else wrote, and perform the actions that someone else had put forward to me. I wanted to be part of the purpose of the play, and part of its creation. This doesn't mean I wasn't willing to perform or work on other playwrights or directors' shows, but I realized very quickly that the acting "industry" is just that: actors are often treated as disposable labor.

(don't get me started on cattle calls, and actors with numbers on their back...)

But I have enough friends for whom the creation and portrayal of emotions is the end-purpose of performance. One of my friends hated a drama she was in, but when she got a convincing cry onstage she'd feel vindicated. But why?

Well, okay, that's not an original question. I guess I should just point you towards the inevitable Aristotle (the goal of theater and therefore performance is emotional catharsis in-and-of-itself) versus Brecht (the goal of theater and therefore performance is to jolt the audience into new awarenesses). And I admit that I am very heavily Brecht-influenced on this and many other issues.

This may be my personal inclinations more than a global idea, which is why I am hesitant to out-and-out condemn this Haiti project. For me, emotional catharsis is not a positive end. It may, at times, be an effective means -- but just as often, the mitigation of catharsis can be equally or more effective towards those means.

The question isn't necessarily whether it is about the actor channeling the emotion too powerfully. The question is, what does it mean to have the audience channel that much emotion? Does it tie them any closer to Haiti than they are already are? Or is it just as likely to trigger defense mechanisms, bring up walls, irritate and enrage. After all, there's a lot of people trying to get at you through Haiti, and not all of them are benevolent. (As I'm writing this, former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have just appeared on Hulu to ask me to send money to Haiti). Take the solar-powered audio bibles. And it's not because these people have poor intentions in their heart. Everyone sees this tragedy and they want to step in, to do something -- that's a human nature. If we're just living through this, what are we giving them?

But unless someone can articulate to me what the direction of this piece is, it leaves me more full of questions and doubts than certainty.

The Different Doctrines Of War

Required reading from Ezra Klein.

The question:

David Brooks is right to understand Barack Obama's national security team as the maturation of thinking that began in Iraq and Afghanistan and focuses more on building civic capacity than destroying military capabilities. This is the post-Iraq consensus between liberals and realists, and it will hold as long as the question is Iraq. But what if the topic changes? If China triggers a confrontation over Taiwan or a threatening genocide cries out for a swift intervention? Where does Gates, or Jones, stand then?

There are many different standards by which America goes to war.

Self-DefenseThere's clearly a united consensus that if the United States suffers a direct attack, we will respond in some fashion.

Powell Doctrine:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

Unfortunately, Powell did not stand up for the Powell doctrine on Iraq (all of them except possibly 7 turned out to be wrong; 4 + 8 we knew wasn't there at the time without UN support; the intelligence community disputes most of the rest). But it is still a solid standard of going in to war, even if its architect let it fall apart.

Where do the members of the incoming Administration stand? This is a question that I would ask them if I got them in a serious interview. I think this is a standard that most of the Administration can agree upon, except with regards to the next standard.

Clinton Doctrine

"Genocide is in and of itself a national interest where we should act" and "we can say to the people of the world, whether you live in Africa, or Central Europe, or any other place, if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion, and it's within our power to stop it, we will stop it."

Although I think in President Clinton's mind, this is part of the Powell Doctrine (an extension of the term "national interest"), that's a fairly controversial stance--it is difficult, but not impossible, to allege that mass genocide in Sudan will lead to American deaths, or even American national interests being defeated.

Of course, I happen to agree with President Clinton about genocide being "just cause", but I don't think that's what the Powell Doctrine means. My personal belief is that the "national interest" in point one of the Powell Doctrine should be replaced, or abutted, with "Are many innocent lives at stake?" I think that should apply equally to US Citizens, French or Indian citizens, or Sudanese.

But, of course, we have to remember the rest of the Powell Doctrine. Somalia was a failure because we didn't understand what was going on; we didn't have the plans, the necessary force, etc.

The Clinton Doctrine, I think, will be most strongly represented by Susan Rice, and possibly by Hillary Clinton. No idea about anyone else.

Bush Doctrine: according to wikipedia:

1) Unilateral action, if required
2) Terrorist-sponsor nations
3) Preventative strikes
4) Democratic regime change

The foremost, I think, is not supported by almost any of Obama's incoming Administration, nor the second one. The third has been explicitly endorsed by Barack Obama (cross-border raids into Pakistan count). I think where Obama parts ways with Bush is whether full scale war is appropriate for the preventative strike, or whether surgical strike action is better. That one may become contentious in a future situation.

The last, I think, will only gain currency if it's attached to something else; humanitarian + regime change, or imminent threat + regime change.

"An Historic Night"

Last week's election was truly historic. Not because of race.

Yes, I mean, it was historic because of race, but something which I find to be equally important is another reason: class.

There were four candidates running head to head. One came from a reasonably successful family (a distinguished military, the McCains) and had married into even more wealth.

The other three came from truly working-class backgrounds.

P-E Barack Obama grew up in the tough parts of Chicago. His father left him when he was young, he went to live with his grandparents, he got involved with drugs.

I'm not saying P-E Obama was poor when he got elected. I'm just saying that he started out poor.

VP-E started on the streets of Scranton. He also is not poor nowadays, but even with the setback of losing a wife and child in a car accident, he managed to keep struggling forward until his success today.

Sarah Palin, say what you will about her, was born to two teachers in a rural community. With not the most prestigious of degrees (sports journalism) she too worked her way up to something you will call a reasonable amount of success.


What history showed is that you don't have to have a name from a well-known family (the Clintons actually go back to the founding of the country; George W. Bush is at the end of a dynasty, the Kennedys became a dynasty) and he didn't grow up in a rich white background. They're not the first in this respect, but to have so many--and for them to be so successful, it still something very important to note.

Conversationalism + 2008: Libertarianism + Socialism

My brother, being a dedicated Libertarian, turned me on to the economic principles and political philosophy of libertarianism. Other guides for me steered me towards socialism, and its wellsprings in the economic hardships of Europe during the Industrial Revolution. Recently, I have been thinking about the two of them, and about my upcoming ambition to enter the realm of politics and start putting my money where my mouth is. Which philosophy should I use to guide me?

Well, of course, that's silly. What libertarianism has taught me, if I had to put it into one sentence, is that too much government can do terrible ills to society. And what socialism has taught me, in one sentence, is that too little government can do terrible ills to society. Libertarians, for instance, tend to focus on how much government the money spends, and on our debt. Socialists focus on the economic hardships of the poor. But let's put those two major doubts together: why is one of the most expensive governments of the last few decades completely failing to address the economic hardships of the people? We have one of the largest governments, and one of the most unresponsive we've ever had.

A libertarian is angry right now because we're wasting tax dollars that could be better spent. Socialists are angry because the people who need our tax dollars aren't getting them. A libertarian hates oil subsidies because it's unnecessary interference in the market; socialists hate it because it makes the rich richer with money taken from the poor and the middle class. A libertarian opposes the War in Iraq because of the budgetary toll, and because of the interventionist role it gives America. A socialist opposes the war because it hurts the people at the bottom while enriching businesses.

If libertarians want a smaller government, and socialists want a more effective government, they both should have aim in 2008: tackling corruption and out-of-control abuses of power in Congress and the White House. The same aim. They should be united, because both of their ideals are being compromised.

The government can be shrunk while still increasing the benefits to the people who need them the most. For instance, the ridiculous incentives for ethanol fuel that sparked food riots all over the world are a waste of our taxpayer money, and only drive up the price of fuel. Another way that libertarians and socialists can unite to achieve both their aims.

Will they disagree on certain issues? Perhaps. Libertarians appear to be against health plans in general, whereas it is one of the issues at the core of the socialist movement. But if a productive conversation is to be made, people of both philosophies should stop seeing themselves as mortal enemies and seeing where they are united.

I feel myself in both camps. I want the government to reach out and make education better, but I don't think we need do be hugely in debt to do it. The real issue is not how much we spend on education, but rather how much each dollar is buying.

What if the President put together a team to assess the buying power of each US Governmental dollar? What if Department of Education aid was compared with, for instance, DonorsChoose? The DonorsChoose website allows the private sphere to see what they're buying, to assess what they think are necessary expenditures. Increased spending should mean a system of evaluating the impact of that dollar.

When Libertarians want to cut funding to ineffective programs, Socialists shouldn't oppose them; they should save their battles for the parts of this government that are actually doing good. And if Libertarians have a better way to tackle the problems Socialists want to tackle, let them hear it. If you have a health care plan that will get many more Americans insured without a large governmental involvement, put it on the table.

On many charts and graphs of political sentiment, "Libertarian" and "Socialist" are considered to be 'polar opposites,' from the inane simplification that the goal of Socialists is to create a large government. Socialists are not totalitarians; true, larger governments tend to be the byproduct of a socialist-leaning government. But then again, larger governments also tend to be the byproduct of many libertarian governments.

Take a prime example: President Bill Clinton. Under his administration, we started paying off the National Debt, we made the welfare system more efficient. But he also proposed a health care plan for America. Budgetary concerns and social concerns were equally on his mind, as they should be on the mind of any president. Was he helped by the tech boom? Perhaps. But I would like to contrast his presidency with that of Governor Grey Davis of California, whose state unarguably reaped the windfall of the Silicon Valley boom. But what did he do with that windfall? He felt compelled to spend it, on measures (good as they may have sounded) that were later rolled back when the boom came back. Ever since then, the deficit has been growing in California, culminating in California's emergency request to Treasurer Henry Paulsen for $4 Billion. Why? Because he never considered the fiscal impact of his plans; he never attempted to make sure that he was spending within his means. Libertarians clearly were not on his mind, and socialism suffered.

That's what I have to say. I have libertarian instincts within me, and socialist instincts. Were I to be in some sort of elected office (as I hope one day to be), I would have to listen to both sets of instincts. "Deregulation" as an overarching philosophy is misguided, but so is irrational regulation--No Child Left Behind showed what irrational regulation can do to a system, whereas the current financial crisis shows what irrational deregulation can do to a system. The point is to have both tools in the pocket, and understand how they operate.