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?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Beyond Debate: A Call to Action on Healthcare
I've been studying the ins and outs of the health care debate for weeks now, and all I can say is thank God I have coverage, because this stuff is making me sick. It's become so bad for me, that I've stared at the computer and wondered how to approach writing about it for days now, and haven't yet figured out where to begin. This situation is rotten on so many levels, I can't think about one without webbing out to many the others.
Why is the United States the only wealthy economy in the world that doesn't offer access to healthcare for all of its people? I've puzzled over many different answers, but it really seems to boil down to two:
1.) The health care industry, like oil, is too powerful to be countered. It now represents about 17% of the GDP and continues to rise.
2. ) The Senate is living up to it's founders' idea - protecting the moneyed elite from the masses by enabling them to control the "democratic" process.
We can't allow this to stand. We have a situation here in which the masses have spoken clearly, but have fallen victim to a campaign of obfuscation. Over seventy percent favored a public option as recently as June; about two thirds right now confess to being confused by the issue. A campaign to convince the public that what they want is not good for them is succeeding. A fine blend of likely truths (the insurance industry will shrink in the face of a strong cost-controlling public option) and lies (an uncaring and incompetent government, wanting to solidify its hold as a greedy socialist, fascist state will form death panels, put your health care in the hands of big brother, not let you talk to your doctor) has been sprinkled over the public consciousness and set to simmer by industry lobbyists and their allies in Congress and the media. Toss in a shakey economy and general uncertainty among consumers, and you get what we have - an erosion of support for something the nation wants.
A clear, unified, mobilized majority can overcome Congressional obfuscation. A confused, nervous public cannot.
Did President Obama's administration count on the republican strategy working so well? I doubt it, though I think they should have seen it coming. I think this administration genuinely wants a public option, but set their course seeking to avoid the crippling damage that might have been caused by taking the rudder out of Congress' hands, as the Clinton administration did in its first term. Should they have seen this? In my humble opinion, yes.
My guess is this: the administration has said from the start that health care is a first-term, long term agenda. It campaigned on completing reform by the end of the first term. But they seemed to have the momentum: a broad public majority wanting reform, a strong House majority, and filibuster-proof senate. Still, they should have seen see how weak the momentum was: you get sixty votes in the senate if every senator lives until a vote is cast and both the conservative and the convenient Democrats all line up with the more liberal ones. Neither has happened.
Now, with President Obama grabbing a bat out of the bat rack and inserting himself into the lineup, the crowd is shifting forward in its seats. The reform movement has fallen behind in the late innings, and a big hit is needed to get the offense going. The big question in my mind is will this be enough? The goal is to turn the minds of voters in the states held by senators who are holding up reform, to mobilize them sufficiently to overcome the obstacle the Senate was designed in part to create. A tall order, and while the President is likely to drive the ball to the deepest part of the park, it's going to take a lot more than a speech to regain the momentum.
The speech will likely bring some media attention to the points Obama is likely to make: That in the wealthiest of all nations, we are morally obliged to have a health care system that does not discriminate against the poor and the sick. That the health care industry is growing far to fast, draining money from other sectors. That it's causing doctors to at in protective interests, rather than the best interests of practice. That it's causing employers to lay more workers off sooner, exacerbating economic problems in difficult times.
Hopefully, some of this attention will also land on a point President Obama is not likely to make, but should: That the popular sentiment that government is inept at managing large things is flat wrong, and easily contradicted by the evidence.
The federal government works administrative miracles, period. And while deficit spending may not seem like a viable business model, the government is not a business. It uses credit to support finance in difficult times, as it should. Sometimes it offers direct "bailouts", but usually it simply borrows more and dedicates more of its budget to paying interest. This keeps the banks lending. It may not feel right to consumers, but it is right for the economy. .
Hopefully, too, President Obama will exhibit the moral courage and leadership he's become known for. My biggest fear is that he will compromise away the momentum for good, and we will never get it back. If what is accomplished is incomplete, it must at least be a momentum builder - something which buys time and creates opportunity real reform. If we settle for non-profit co-op which make some forms of health care available to some more people but are content to more or less tinker around the edges and not interfere with profiteering, we lose.
We need a government program that is true to our highest ideals - that America can be a prosperous land while being a model of participatory democracy; that in order for such a democracy to flourish, public investment in its own physical and mental health and well being is vitally necessary; and that democratic government can be effectively used by the people to support and minister to their shared interests.
When President Obama speaks to Congress tomorrow, he will send a strong signal as to where he intends to take this debate. Assuming the message he sends is the one I want to hear, I know my role will be to act to support the counter-education of a worried, puzzled public which has been bamboozled in recent months by an effective campaign to sustain an insurance industry which reaps obscene profits and routinely discriminates against tens of millions of Americans under the guise of being in compassionate support of our health and well being. If the message is weak, the fight will again be lost.
If you haven't already, please take a moment today to email the White House and support the President. Then grab a bat out of the rack. Chances are he'll drive the ball deep, but when he's finished, we're next at bat.
Why is the United States the only wealthy economy in the world that doesn't offer access to healthcare for all of its people? I've puzzled over many different answers, but it really seems to boil down to two:
1.) The health care industry, like oil, is too powerful to be countered. It now represents about 17% of the GDP and continues to rise.
2. ) The Senate is living up to it's founders' idea - protecting the moneyed elite from the masses by enabling them to control the "democratic" process.
We can't allow this to stand. We have a situation here in which the masses have spoken clearly, but have fallen victim to a campaign of obfuscation. Over seventy percent favored a public option as recently as June; about two thirds right now confess to being confused by the issue. A campaign to convince the public that what they want is not good for them is succeeding. A fine blend of likely truths (the insurance industry will shrink in the face of a strong cost-controlling public option) and lies (an uncaring and incompetent government, wanting to solidify its hold as a greedy socialist, fascist state will form death panels, put your health care in the hands of big brother, not let you talk to your doctor) has been sprinkled over the public consciousness and set to simmer by industry lobbyists and their allies in Congress and the media. Toss in a shakey economy and general uncertainty among consumers, and you get what we have - an erosion of support for something the nation wants.
A clear, unified, mobilized majority can overcome Congressional obfuscation. A confused, nervous public cannot.
Did President Obama's administration count on the republican strategy working so well? I doubt it, though I think they should have seen it coming. I think this administration genuinely wants a public option, but set their course seeking to avoid the crippling damage that might have been caused by taking the rudder out of Congress' hands, as the Clinton administration did in its first term. Should they have seen this? In my humble opinion, yes.
My guess is this: the administration has said from the start that health care is a first-term, long term agenda. It campaigned on completing reform by the end of the first term. But they seemed to have the momentum: a broad public majority wanting reform, a strong House majority, and filibuster-proof senate. Still, they should have seen see how weak the momentum was: you get sixty votes in the senate if every senator lives until a vote is cast and both the conservative and the convenient Democrats all line up with the more liberal ones. Neither has happened.
Now, with President Obama grabbing a bat out of the bat rack and inserting himself into the lineup, the crowd is shifting forward in its seats. The reform movement has fallen behind in the late innings, and a big hit is needed to get the offense going. The big question in my mind is will this be enough? The goal is to turn the minds of voters in the states held by senators who are holding up reform, to mobilize them sufficiently to overcome the obstacle the Senate was designed in part to create. A tall order, and while the President is likely to drive the ball to the deepest part of the park, it's going to take a lot more than a speech to regain the momentum.
The speech will likely bring some media attention to the points Obama is likely to make: That in the wealthiest of all nations, we are morally obliged to have a health care system that does not discriminate against the poor and the sick. That the health care industry is growing far to fast, draining money from other sectors. That it's causing doctors to at in protective interests, rather than the best interests of practice. That it's causing employers to lay more workers off sooner, exacerbating economic problems in difficult times.
Hopefully, some of this attention will also land on a point President Obama is not likely to make, but should: That the popular sentiment that government is inept at managing large things is flat wrong, and easily contradicted by the evidence.
The federal government works administrative miracles, period. And while deficit spending may not seem like a viable business model, the government is not a business. It uses credit to support finance in difficult times, as it should. Sometimes it offers direct "bailouts", but usually it simply borrows more and dedicates more of its budget to paying interest. This keeps the banks lending. It may not feel right to consumers, but it is right for the economy. .
Hopefully, too, President Obama will exhibit the moral courage and leadership he's become known for. My biggest fear is that he will compromise away the momentum for good, and we will never get it back. If what is accomplished is incomplete, it must at least be a momentum builder - something which buys time and creates opportunity real reform. If we settle for non-profit co-op which make some forms of health care available to some more people but are content to more or less tinker around the edges and not interfere with profiteering, we lose.
We need a government program that is true to our highest ideals - that America can be a prosperous land while being a model of participatory democracy; that in order for such a democracy to flourish, public investment in its own physical and mental health and well being is vitally necessary; and that democratic government can be effectively used by the people to support and minister to their shared interests.
When President Obama speaks to Congress tomorrow, he will send a strong signal as to where he intends to take this debate. Assuming the message he sends is the one I want to hear, I know my role will be to act to support the counter-education of a worried, puzzled public which has been bamboozled in recent months by an effective campaign to sustain an insurance industry which reaps obscene profits and routinely discriminates against tens of millions of Americans under the guise of being in compassionate support of our health and well being. If the message is weak, the fight will again be lost.
If you haven't already, please take a moment today to email the White House and support the President. Then grab a bat out of the rack. Chances are he'll drive the ball deep, but when he's finished, we're next at bat.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Obama and the "War on Terror"
Robert Gibbs has reclaimed the term "War on Terror" for the White House. The clouds grow darker on the horizon.
The American-led military involvement in Afghanistan has never been rejected by the Obama campaign team or administration, so this is a shift in rhetoric much more than position. Obama has referred to the elimination of Al Quaeda as "just" and necessary. He has long been committed to raising troop levels and vowed to hunt Osama Bin Laden. Reclaiming the term (and no, press secretaries do not experience slips of the tongue) should come as no surprise. But it is telling, nonetheless.
Nor should it come as a surprise that a majority of Americans oppose intensifying military involvement in Afghanistan. We know, as the President knows, that this is not a war, that it can't be won. Nor is it a sociopolitical question such as the resolvable conflict between Israel and Palestine. It is rather a costly, violent battle against an extremist ideology that will not go away - least of all not in the face of battle, but probably not in the face of withdrawal as well. Should the United States end military involvement in Afghanistan, the likeliest outcome will involved the Taliban reasserting power, Al Quaeda flourishing, and violent attacks in the the Middle east and in Western nations escalating.
I say no war. I say no violence. I say no American incursion of military power. But the problem I have is that when someone asks me, "so what would you do to restore peace in the world once the US stops acting violently in Afghanistan?", I don't have an answer. I believe that violence would continue. I believe it will come to England. I believe it will come to the US. So, in order to oppose this war, in order to actively seek to end it, I need to see how ending this violence can lead to peace, because I don't believe it will. I'm not convinced that a resolution to the Palestinean-Israeli conflict will do it, nor do I anticipate a peaceful resolution any time soon. I'm not convinced that a new Afghani of Pakistani government will do it.
Is this cynical? I honestly don't know. I started this blog to generate and sustain hope. I invite you to discuss this issue; I need to ask you for help with this question.
peace,
El Oxidado
The American-led military involvement in Afghanistan has never been rejected by the Obama campaign team or administration, so this is a shift in rhetoric much more than position. Obama has referred to the elimination of Al Quaeda as "just" and necessary. He has long been committed to raising troop levels and vowed to hunt Osama Bin Laden. Reclaiming the term (and no, press secretaries do not experience slips of the tongue) should come as no surprise. But it is telling, nonetheless.
Nor should it come as a surprise that a majority of Americans oppose intensifying military involvement in Afghanistan. We know, as the President knows, that this is not a war, that it can't be won. Nor is it a sociopolitical question such as the resolvable conflict between Israel and Palestine. It is rather a costly, violent battle against an extremist ideology that will not go away - least of all not in the face of battle, but probably not in the face of withdrawal as well. Should the United States end military involvement in Afghanistan, the likeliest outcome will involved the Taliban reasserting power, Al Quaeda flourishing, and violent attacks in the the Middle east and in Western nations escalating.
I say no war. I say no violence. I say no American incursion of military power. But the problem I have is that when someone asks me, "so what would you do to restore peace in the world once the US stops acting violently in Afghanistan?", I don't have an answer. I believe that violence would continue. I believe it will come to England. I believe it will come to the US. So, in order to oppose this war, in order to actively seek to end it, I need to see how ending this violence can lead to peace, because I don't believe it will. I'm not convinced that a resolution to the Palestinean-Israeli conflict will do it, nor do I anticipate a peaceful resolution any time soon. I'm not convinced that a new Afghani of Pakistani government will do it.
Is this cynical? I honestly don't know. I started this blog to generate and sustain hope. I invite you to discuss this issue; I need to ask you for help with this question.
peace,
El Oxidado
What I'm learning from Ted Kennedy
Like many of us, I suppose, I've come to see Ted Kennedy over the years as a number of different people -- some good, most bad. Champion of the common man. Liberal elitist. A playboy who vigorously abused drugs, alcohol, and women. A committed, compassionate, tireless public servant. A savvy, liberal tactician. A crony, a power broker. A settler, a compromiser. Above all, a Kennedy. Part person, part media-created myth. All youthful vigor and shining teeth. From young and unreasonably handsome frat boy to old, blotchy pudgy frat boy, the symbol of white American capitalist ambition and the narrowest definition of American liberty-- the ascent of the Irish in Yankee culture. A modernist bundle of contradiction whom I could never fully embrace.
I don't think the events of the past few days and months have served to change much of this image of Ted Kennedy for me. He seems to have been a deeply flawed person. Yet, as I've watch his family and friends speak and witnessed the response to his passing by many around him, I feel a deepening awareness of some things that I, many of my close friends -- and I'm sure many of us who are passing into middle and old age -- are learning. As I reflect on Ted Kennedy, I reflect also what it means to be a good person in the world, what it means to grow, to forgive - especially oneself, and to change one's life for the better.
In the past few years, I've witnessed my parents and in-laws all grapple with age and illness, and my friends, my wife and I with the challenges of sustaining marriage and family. It's been a time of reflection and re-examination of who we are, where we come from, and how we create our own experiences. I think I'm beginning to better understand life as an ongoing act of becoming -- and this understanding has given me great hope.
I believe the place we operate from - what we think about ourselves and our world -- is not as easily named and identified as we would like. I am, in a sense, myself, my mother, my father, my siblings, friends, colleagues - the totality of my experience. We are what we are genetically, and we are what we are as product of our interaction with the world. In a larger sense, we are the world, we are the interactivity. So, it seems, it was with Teddy - Teddy was his father, his brothers (and the men who killed them), his classmates, his cronies - and he also was his women, his constituents, his children, his grandchildren. Look at this way, the sense of conflict - the sense that Ted Kennedy was on the one hand crude and boorish and intolerable, and on the other worth of great admiration and affection -- can be seen as a reflection of the world in which he existed.
His is in a way an archetypal narrative - a heroic myth. There came a time of reckoning - historians are suggesting it seemed to happen around the time Ted Kennedy took the witness stand in his nephew's rape trial and a short time later failed to come to the aid of Anita Hill when she needed support for courageous action. The narrative tells us that these two events highlighted the deeply contradictory nature of Ted Kennedy's character, and helped awaken him in some new and important way to the destructive effects of his behavior on himself, his family, and ultimately on the People. The turning point in the story comes with the beginning of a new, sorely needed relationship in Ted's life - Vicki - and with his public admission of flaw and public declaration of his intent to own his failings and take responsibility for them. With this acceptance of responsibility there came a re-commitment -- to live the values he publicly embraced, to strive to be a better man. To become the father his entire family needed, the husband he had failed to be, the champion in life he professed to be in his work. Teddy, in other words, owned his faults and started new. His strengths multiplied. He created for himself a new narrative. And if any of the sentiments expressed over and again by those who knew him briefly and those who knew him best are to be embraced, he became a loving and beloved person.
The true power of forgiveness, and of blessing, is the power to wipe the slate clean. It is the power to say "It begins now." We make our confession, we own our faults, we forgive ourselves, we act in love, and we change our lives. We change the totality of our experience. I miss Ted Kennedy, and I am grateful for having had him in my life. He was, I think, a good and great man, battling terrible forces, and growing wise in his old age. I intend to study his life more closely, because I think there is much to discover in his example.
I don't think the events of the past few days and months have served to change much of this image of Ted Kennedy for me. He seems to have been a deeply flawed person. Yet, as I've watch his family and friends speak and witnessed the response to his passing by many around him, I feel a deepening awareness of some things that I, many of my close friends -- and I'm sure many of us who are passing into middle and old age -- are learning. As I reflect on Ted Kennedy, I reflect also what it means to be a good person in the world, what it means to grow, to forgive - especially oneself, and to change one's life for the better.
In the past few years, I've witnessed my parents and in-laws all grapple with age and illness, and my friends, my wife and I with the challenges of sustaining marriage and family. It's been a time of reflection and re-examination of who we are, where we come from, and how we create our own experiences. I think I'm beginning to better understand life as an ongoing act of becoming -- and this understanding has given me great hope.
I believe the place we operate from - what we think about ourselves and our world -- is not as easily named and identified as we would like. I am, in a sense, myself, my mother, my father, my siblings, friends, colleagues - the totality of my experience. We are what we are genetically, and we are what we are as product of our interaction with the world. In a larger sense, we are the world, we are the interactivity. So, it seems, it was with Teddy - Teddy was his father, his brothers (and the men who killed them), his classmates, his cronies - and he also was his women, his constituents, his children, his grandchildren. Look at this way, the sense of conflict - the sense that Ted Kennedy was on the one hand crude and boorish and intolerable, and on the other worth of great admiration and affection -- can be seen as a reflection of the world in which he existed.
His is in a way an archetypal narrative - a heroic myth. There came a time of reckoning - historians are suggesting it seemed to happen around the time Ted Kennedy took the witness stand in his nephew's rape trial and a short time later failed to come to the aid of Anita Hill when she needed support for courageous action. The narrative tells us that these two events highlighted the deeply contradictory nature of Ted Kennedy's character, and helped awaken him in some new and important way to the destructive effects of his behavior on himself, his family, and ultimately on the People. The turning point in the story comes with the beginning of a new, sorely needed relationship in Ted's life - Vicki - and with his public admission of flaw and public declaration of his intent to own his failings and take responsibility for them. With this acceptance of responsibility there came a re-commitment -- to live the values he publicly embraced, to strive to be a better man. To become the father his entire family needed, the husband he had failed to be, the champion in life he professed to be in his work. Teddy, in other words, owned his faults and started new. His strengths multiplied. He created for himself a new narrative. And if any of the sentiments expressed over and again by those who knew him briefly and those who knew him best are to be embraced, he became a loving and beloved person.
The true power of forgiveness, and of blessing, is the power to wipe the slate clean. It is the power to say "It begins now." We make our confession, we own our faults, we forgive ourselves, we act in love, and we change our lives. We change the totality of our experience. I miss Ted Kennedy, and I am grateful for having had him in my life. He was, I think, a good and great man, battling terrible forces, and growing wise in his old age. I intend to study his life more closely, because I think there is much to discover in his example.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
