I am bringing the blog, The Grass is Always Greener in Left Field back. I need to reflect on what I/we need to reflect on. Help we out; tune we in.

Adam Crawley: Health Care Reform? We Haven't Even Started...

Adam Crawley (he's the one with the beard) is a former employee of mine at the Academic Enhancement Center who studies infectious diseases at UC Berkley. A highly informed, empassioned and articulate ally in the battle for health care reform, Adam recently began a multi-part series on what a truly comprehensive reform would include over on his blog, the Woolsey Street Digest. In the spirit of our communal effort, he has offered to post his blog here as well. I think the best way to do this is to bounce you over to Adam's page, where you can get an additional bit of background on the issue (and probably some insight into the athletic endurance test called ultimate frisbee). I look forward to the rest of Adam's piece -- especially an expansion on the relationship between the "outliers" and the rest of the aggregate needs. Have fun: woolseystreet.blogspot.com/2009/10/health-care-reform-we-havent-even.html

Support Our Troops - Doug Roscoe

With this post by Doug Roscoe, Associate Professor of Political Science at The University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, The Grass is Greener in Left Field begins the transition to community blogging. Please remember, your comments on these or any posts are always welcome - the goal, after all, is democractic discourse. 

 

Since the wars began in Afghanistan and, especially, Iraq, I’ve felt uncomfortable with the ostentatious displays of support for our men and women in the armed forces.  I never much plumbed the reasons for my discomfort, writing it off as part of my general distaste for highly overt demonstrations of patriotism, which are all too often louder than they are deep.  Plus, there’s some cognitive dissonance that bubbles up in this context since I do, sincerely, feel much gratitude and appreciation for the individuals in military service to our country.

And then, this morning while out on a bike ride, I saw one of these displays and the roots of my annoyance became clear to me.  Here was a sign on the side of a sleepy rural road in Westport, Massachusetts:

What bothered me about this sign is the “We.”  We support the troops.  The implication is all too clear: we do, and some of you don’t.  And, I suspect, they’d put me in the latter category.

I don’t think we should be fighting these wars.  I believe there is some justification for our action in Afghanistan and virtually none for being in Iraq.  I believe that any justification that exists is outweighed by the costs, material and personal.  Whether we should pull out of both places immediately is another question, better left to another post.  But neither of these wars should have commenced.  These were bad wars.  Unneccesary wars.

I’m guessing these opinions disqualify me for We in the eyes of the sign builders.

And that’s what angers me: I do support the troops.  I respect them.  I value their service.  I reflect on a regular basis about the sacrifices and hardships they and their families endure.  So it irks me when it is implied that I don’t.

But, there’s more going on here.  Something deeper bothered me.  To get at it, I had to figure out where this creation of us-vs.-them, in group-vs.-out group, is coming from.  It’s possible there is still some residual sentiment from the domestic turmoil surrounding the Vietnam war.  Opponents then often expressed views implying that military personnel were complicit in the mistakes of that war.  Draftees were encouraged not to go, and returning veterans were disparaged.

But, I think the left in the US has learned a lot on reflection from this period.  I think the left—always skilled at empathy—has come to understand the perspective of the soldier.  It has come to see the importance of military service and the integrity of the commitment it entails.  It understands, now, that bad wars are propogated by mistakes at the top, not at the bottom.

I think maybe We understands this change of heart on the left.  After all, anti-war protests this time around have not been directed at the military personnel.  They’ve been directed at President Bush, his administration, and the Republican Congresses that supported his policies.  There’s really no evidence that any significant number of doves blames the troops.

So, it seems that what bothers We is not that I don’t support the troops but that I didn’t—and still don’t—support the policies of George W. Bush.  Their sign plays a subtle but insidious sleight of hand.  Supporting the troops is proper and right.  And supporting the troops means supporting the war.  And supporting the war means supporting Bush.  So, working backwards, opposing Bush means opposing the troops and opposing what is proper and right.

In the end, the sign is not about troops at all.  It’s a bald political statement.  It really says, “We support President Bush and if you don’t support him you oppose what we all agree is proper and right.”

At last, I’m at the root of my discomfort: they’re using the troops.  It’s not a genuine expression of support for the military.  It’s a way of making a political point.  They may not even be fully aware of it, but the message turns “support for the troops” into an instrument; it treats them as means, not ends.

The troops deserve better.

Doug Roscoe, PhD, teaches political science at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.

Fear Itself

I know that I'm starting this early morning rumination with no sense of its destination.  I'm going to use this post to try to discover something. Check it again tomorrow; if it's still here, it likely will have changed. And feel free to suggest how that might look.

A friend of mine has a sister who is dying of cancer. The dying woman is the mother of two children - one seven, the other eleven.  A week ago yesterday, at the consent of her husband and family, she was removed from life support. Food and liquids were withheld. Doctors predicted she would die within hours - two days at the most.

As of yesterday she was still alive. Her eyes were still responsive. Several of the doctors - including friends of hers, as she too was a doctor at this hospital - have observed that such tenacity is sometimes seen in mothers of young children. Yesterday as my friend and I speculated on this, I asked when the last time her sister had seen her children. My friend explained that the youngest had not wanted to go to the hospital, so she hadn't seen him since being transferred there.

Might it be that this woman has been holding on to life past all reasonable expectation because she desires to see her small child before she dies?  She cannot say, and we cannot tell.  But I'm sure most parents who love their children would hold the same answer in their hearts, and would know this answer as an article of faith.

I had another conversation this week, this one with a different friend. We talked about her son, now 14, and my daughter, 11, and their similar dispositions toward school. Soon we were doing what parents inevitably do, shaking our heads at the relentless passage of time and voicing concerns - nay, legitimate fears - about the years immediately ahead and what we knew they would almost certainly contain. Sex. Drugs. Alcohol. Cars. Abusive relationships. In short, all the risks our own lives have presented us.

How, we wondered, does one do this - this letting go? Sure, we really live under an illusion of control over our kid's lives and security even now, but how do we ever bring ourselves to set them out in a world which we know through our own experiences involves pain, abuse, sorrow, and dances with death? How do we let go this part of ourselves, let it out into the world we know is as laden with risk as it is reward?

We talked about the way we deal with the small things.  Like many of us, I fight with my daughter. On the surface, the fights are over petty things.  She fights back like a lawyer. She changing, engaging more complex strategies still uses violence and tantrums and whining and other tools of the immature, but now she also blends in reasoned argument and assertion of rights. The other day, when caught using an unacceptably vulgar term to describe a fellow discussant in a chat room she explained, "Daddy, I'm getting to an age now where kids begin to experiment with language like that."

Sure, she'd stolen the line from me; I had suggested the very same thing to her several weeks before when asking her if she or her friends ever swore (of course, she told me no). But to hear her snap of the explanation so quickly and capably made me take a step back. She's changed. 

And I know that while the fights are over small things - bedtime, too many snacks, wearing or not wearing a coat to school -- there is a larger subtext motivating me. My daughter is entering puberty. Soon the arguments will be over curfew, car rides, boyfriends. The temptation will be to smell her breath when she gets home, to search her room, to question whether or no the band she's listening to is reflective of her state of psychological well being.  And it won't be because of concern over what I might find. It will be because of larger, less accessible fear.

Fear of letting go. Fear of pain, and suffering. And death.

This fear iosn't limited to my daughter, either. My father had a near heart attack. He's already had a tumor taken from his lung. My mother has emphysema. My wife's father has had a stroke and an arrythma.  Both her parents have.  One friend's mom has cancer.  Another's dad just died of it.  I've entered into that stage in life when I am now concerned for the health and well being of growing children and declining elders.All this fear, this fear of loss, of separation.

How do we let go that which we cherish most?  My friend's sister is teaching me the simplest truth - we don't. It's not going to happen. And if it's not going to happen, if letting go easily is not part of the program, then I must learn to live in accordance with Franklin Roosevelt's great statement, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

The undoing does not come by death or destruction. The undoing comes from within our own minds and hearts, when we chose to seek a way out from the nature of experience.  We learn to live with the fear. We do what we can, we do the best we can, and we accept the inevitability of fear, the inevitability of suffering, and the inevitability of loss.  And we work to nurture and express our love, and - like my friend's sister - we hold on to it. becuase it is what are are, it is what we do.  It's not a battle against anything.  We care because we are here;  our loving energy is binding.  So is our pain. They arise together, from the same source. Our sorrow and our suffering come when we fail to attend to these simpler principles of experience and existence.

Obama the Anitchrist?: Take courage against fundamentalism

Oh, man have we got a problem.

According to a recent Public Policy Polling survey  of New Jersey voters,  nearly 1/3 of Republican voters either think Barack Obama is the Antichrist, or "Aren't sure".  That's right. The Antichrist. Let's pass right over Jimmy Carter's concern that there is strong dislike of President Obama because he is black. Apparently, a major voting bloc thinks he's Christ's evil twin.

Now, granted, had I been polled during the Bush administration and asked if Dick Cheney were the Antichrist, I'm not sure what I would have answered. I have no opinion on the Antichrist as anything other than a fictional entity, but I still would have been tempted to say yes, just for giggles. So maybe it's fair to assume that the numbers the are a bit inflated. But by how much?  And what would the numbers be like in red states with higher percentages of fundamentalist Christians among them? I think this is not something to be overlooked.  I think it should be a major concern to Republicans who are interested in the long-term strength of their party, and in serious-minded governance. Apparently, at least 1/3 of its base are educated to distrust fact as a matter of faith.

This is not a question of values or economics.  This is not believing that we should vote out President Obama because he will socialize medicine, or expand abortion rights. This is voting based on a concern that the United States is president over by a functionary of Satan.  And it's a big enough voting block that few in the Republican party seem willing to challenge it.

Already, media pundits are downplaying this problem by comparing apples with oranges - comparing, for example, this 1/3 to the 1/3 of Democrats who suspect George Bush may have had prior knowledge of a 9/11 attack. Yes, 33% of Democrats suspect that Bush had prior knowledge. But that suspicion is at least plausible - it's probably not true, but it is grounded in a stream of related evidence: that intelligence new an attack of some kind was imminent, it happened to be politically expedient, that President Bush's administration openly engaged in lying and distorting the truth about the response to the attack, etc. One can understand how a substantial chunk of anti-Bush voters would draw such a conclusion by using fact and reason, even if the facts are debatable.

The fundamentalist belief that the President is an evil spirit, by contrast, is dangerous to the entire political process.

Courageous Republicans should speak out against it and call it what it is.  They can't afford to ignore it. The seeds are being sown for a culture war in the United States similar in many ways to the culture war being fought among Muslims.  And if you think this is a bit extreme, ask the families of the doctors and abortion workers and museum guards who have been shot and blown up in recent years by fundamentalist Christians who believe Jesus has sanctioned their terrorism. What do they think?

Free Speech and Democratic Discourse: Shouting "Fire" in a Crowded Town Hall Meeting

Why is this so difficult, people?

For weeks I've been hearing conservatives defend the "shouters" at town hall meetings across the land (and more recently in the House of Representatives) by explaining that they are merely venting their righteous anger and  exercising their "Right to Free Speech".

Bullshit.

Granted, when the founding "fathers" drew this rule up, they didn't leave any instructions as to how one might exercise this right in a public forum. But in the intervening 220 years, champions of democracy have come up with some useful, commonsense guidelines for democratic discourse.  One is this: In a forum where issues are being discussed in an informative way, with a goal of debating the pros and cons of an issue, building consensus and reaching a decision by democratic means, participants should make allowances for the inclusion of all participants.

When one person speaks or acts in a coercive or threatening way - shouting people down, casting insults, making threats, etc. - they are acting to limit the participation of others. This form of speech is anti-democractic. The tactics used by conservative "tea baggers" (or whatever they are called) are designed not to express opinion, but rather to stifle opposition. This has been openly admitted by the leaders of this movement. This type of activity amounts to an active effort to suppress thought and expression - it is anti-first amendment, plain and simple.  To call it an exercise of first amendment rights is pure hypocrisy.

Does Joe Wilson's childish outburst rise to this level? Maybe, maybe not. It violate rules of decorum, but it didn't necessarily stifle the expression of others since the meeting was not intended to be a forum for debate of the issues  (unless you make the argument that applauding or not applauding amounts to democratic discourse, and the even thinner argument that Wilson's shout was intended to unnerve supportive Democrats to the point where they might not choose to applaud). No - what Joe Wilson did was foolish, narrow minded, embarassing and probably racist - but I doubt it was intended to be anti democractic.

By the way, I applaud Barack Obama -- who probably drew blood as he bit his tongue -- for answering calmly and directly, and then proceeding as if to say "ignore the foolish man to my right, we have so real work to do here." I am less impressed by the House, who seem intent on ratcheting up the hero worship on the right by keeping Wilson in the headlines.  It's like a parent who takes a child over the knee because his apology sounded insincere - the wrong kind of lesson. President Obama has already moved on, because there are more important things to focus on here - and demonizing Wilson will only hurt the cause. 

President Obama and the Late Inning Rally on Reform

As I predicted, President Obama got a late inning rally on health care reform started last night with a powerful, purposeful speech before a joint session of Congress. And, I as I predicted we now are left to keep the rally going if we want anything done.

There's no mistaking two things about the President's call to action: 1.) It outlined an ambitious reform plan that, if passed into law, would create radical changes for the better in how health insurance companies operate; and 2.) It signaled that while the President thinks allowing the federal government to operate an insurance program for all Americans, he will not insist that Congress do so. 

He's left that to us; and rightfully so. Telling Congress what to do is the job of the American Public, not the President.  I would love to see President Obama stake his legacy on insisting on a public option, but I know it wouldn't work. I know too that the backlash from such an attempt would likely doom health care reform for another 20 years. President Obama is playing it smart. If the reform package he outlined to the world last night gets passed, it would be a major step forward -- a good start.  I don't think it would be enough, but it would be a major step forward in very delicate economic times, and that will have to do for now. Any future progress would depend on the President's - and our - continued shaping of a progressive agenda over time, just as it did during the Kennedy/Johnson years.

So now it's up to us. President Obama launched a campaign last night to change the message the public has been hearing on reform.  It's come late in the game, to be sure, and that creates more pressure.  But it can be done.

Senior Citizens in conservative states -- especially those with Democrat Senators may hold the key. They're investment in the outcome is huge, their political power is well known.  These senators need to be hearing the message from the President and from their colleagues, but they need to be hearing it from their constituents as well.  Any grass roots efforts to get the job done in the senate should focus on these groups. Lobbying the AARP and other senior action groups may help.

In the end, we won't get a public option. Not this time. We need to work to make sure that what we get is something we can build on, not smoke-and-mirrors.

Please, let's use this space to share thoughts and ideas on how we can do our part to help get the job done.