The immortal hand and eye that frame his symmetry are those of Annie Liebovitz for a naked-to-the-waist Vanity Fair cover as Tiger Woods enters the new decade, not as the unflappable figure addressing a golf ball on Sunday afternoon TV but as a subject of sermonizing for the morning political pundits.
On Fox News, Brit Hume suggests that Buddhism may be below par for Woods' moral crisis: "I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.'"
Vanity Fair offers a more worldly gloss on his media sins, suggesting that Woods "exhibited the same superhuman confidence off the golf course that he exhibited on it, apparently convinced he would never be caught despite the stupid sloppiness at the end—-text messages, voice-mail messages. He deluded himself into thinking he could be something that he wasn’t: untouchable. The greatest feat of his career is that he managed to get away with it for so long in public, the bionic man instead of the human one who hit a fire hydrant."
Only David Letterman reserves judgment, complaining in his monologue that he wishes the fallen idol would stop calling him for advice. But perhaps Woods should. As he keeps losing sponsors, his late-night counterpart is doing well after being water-boarded by extra-marital scandal.
If there is a message in all this, it may be that the public finds it harder to forgive a celebrity who comes on as Mr. Clean than one who specializes in being snarky and snide about everybody else's foibles.
But in an era where disgrace is only a temporary setback, before the decade is out, the two could find themselves co-hosting a Family Values telethon.
But meanwhile a word of advice for the Tiger: Keep your shirt on and remember what happened to Barack Obama's approval ratings after he appeared topless on a magazine cover last spring.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Alternative Alohas
Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh will both be leaving Hawaii with a better prognosis for the new decade than events of the holiday season might have provided.
If the Christmas Day body bomber had not been thwarted, the President's vacation would have been cut short to lead the nation in mourning hundreds of victims of what he today clearly attributed to terrorism: "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.”
As daunting as his challenge is to "to make sure our hard-working men and women in our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security communities have the tools and resources they need to keep America safe," the President will start that process in an atmosphere without the shock, rage and grief of another 9/11.
There may never be a precise answer to what determined the narrow margin of that suicide bomber's failure, once again underscoring how much more contingent real life is than political rhetoric.
That realization presents itself again with the emergence of Rush Limbaugh from a Hawaiian hospital after his own near-death experience on Christmas Eve. In a press conference, a relaxed, almost beatific Limbaugh calls the scare a "blessing in disguise," noting, "It takes things like this in life maybe to prepare you for the eventuality that you are getting older, you're not as young as you were, and not as invincible as you once thought you were."
Limbaugh and America were both lucky to dodge a bullet this week, and we might start the new year with a nod to Wordsworth's "Intimations of Immortality" by giving "Thanks to the human heart by which we live,/Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears" and easing up on blaming one another for what human beings can't control.
If the Christmas Day body bomber had not been thwarted, the President's vacation would have been cut short to lead the nation in mourning hundreds of victims of what he today clearly attributed to terrorism: "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.”
As daunting as his challenge is to "to make sure our hard-working men and women in our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security communities have the tools and resources they need to keep America safe," the President will start that process in an atmosphere without the shock, rage and grief of another 9/11.
There may never be a precise answer to what determined the narrow margin of that suicide bomber's failure, once again underscoring how much more contingent real life is than political rhetoric.
That realization presents itself again with the emergence of Rush Limbaugh from a Hawaiian hospital after his own near-death experience on Christmas Eve. In a press conference, a relaxed, almost beatific Limbaugh calls the scare a "blessing in disguise," noting, "It takes things like this in life maybe to prepare you for the eventuality that you are getting older, you're not as young as you were, and not as invincible as you once thought you were."
Limbaugh and America were both lucky to dodge a bullet this week, and we might start the new year with a nod to Wordsworth's "Intimations of Immortality" by giving "Thanks to the human heart by which we live,/Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears" and easing up on blaming one another for what human beings can't control.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
When Would Osama Have Made the No-Fly List?
From the blame scramble over the aborted Christmas bombing comes a CIA defense of the failure to ground Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
The New York Times quotes an anonymous official: “You had a young man who was becoming increasingly pious and was turning his back on his family’s wealthy lifestyle. That alone makes him neither St. Francis nor a dead-eyed killer.
“Every piece of data, of course, looks different when you know the answer, as everyone does now.”
By this smug reasoning, Osama bin Laden might not have made the no-fly list for "turning his back on his family's lifestyle" until after 9/11, even if his father, like Adbulmutallab's, had warned the CIA about his son's radicalization, citing online posts about his "dilemma between liberalism and extremism" over several years.
"American officials," says the Times, "contend that they took the father’s account seriously, but that he never signaled that his son might carry out a terrorist attack." Absent details of an actual plot, they put his name on a large list but failed to alert other intelligence agencies.
This kind of lackadaisical response confirms the near-impossibility of preventing terror by bureaucracy alone. As the President reviews what went wrong and looks for ways to fix the system, he might want to start with the reaction of Rep. Jane Harman, chair of the House Homeland Security subcommittee:
"When government officials receive credible tips like that provided by Abdulmutallab's father regarding Yemen... someone's hair should be on fire," she said yesterday.
If we don't have people like that, the White House had better start looking for them.
The New York Times quotes an anonymous official: “You had a young man who was becoming increasingly pious and was turning his back on his family’s wealthy lifestyle. That alone makes him neither St. Francis nor a dead-eyed killer.
“Every piece of data, of course, looks different when you know the answer, as everyone does now.”
By this smug reasoning, Osama bin Laden might not have made the no-fly list for "turning his back on his family's lifestyle" until after 9/11, even if his father, like Adbulmutallab's, had warned the CIA about his son's radicalization, citing online posts about his "dilemma between liberalism and extremism" over several years.
"American officials," says the Times, "contend that they took the father’s account seriously, but that he never signaled that his son might carry out a terrorist attack." Absent details of an actual plot, they put his name on a large list but failed to alert other intelligence agencies.
This kind of lackadaisical response confirms the near-impossibility of preventing terror by bureaucracy alone. As the President reviews what went wrong and looks for ways to fix the system, he might want to start with the reaction of Rep. Jane Harman, chair of the House Homeland Security subcommittee:
"When government officials receive credible tips like that provided by Abdulmutallab's father regarding Yemen... someone's hair should be on fire," she said yesterday.
If we don't have people like that, the White House had better start looking for them.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
True Believers: Abdulmullatab and Cheney
"Passionate hatred," Eric Hoffer wrote half a century ago, "can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance."
Days after a 23-year-old Nigerian demonstrates the enduring truth of this observation by Eisenhower's favorite philosopher, along comes 68-year-old Dick Cheney to confirm its universality.
The former Vice President emerges to deplore not the attempted bombing but Barack Obama's response to it. Cheney, apparently at loose ends before his memoirs are published in May, can't resist another airing of the fanatical grievance of his holy cause--to prove that Bush's successor cares only about "social transformation" of American society.
"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days," he says in a statement, "it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war...He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency--social transformation."
It's not clear whether Cheney pounced on Obama's first cautious reaction to the incident or simply chose to ignore his subsequent condemnation of a "systemic failure" and order of a top-to-bottom review of security procedures.
But as Cheney and other rabid Republicans continue their attacks on the Administration, the rest of us may take comfort in another observation of the longshoreman-philosopher who wrote "The True Believer" and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Ronald Reagan.
“It is cheering," Eric Hoffer wrote, "to see that the rats are still around--the ship is not sinking.”
Update: The White House responds on its blog, with Commmunications Director Dan Pfeiffer writing that "we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers. Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer."
Pfeiffer declares that "this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President."
Days after a 23-year-old Nigerian demonstrates the enduring truth of this observation by Eisenhower's favorite philosopher, along comes 68-year-old Dick Cheney to confirm its universality.
The former Vice President emerges to deplore not the attempted bombing but Barack Obama's response to it. Cheney, apparently at loose ends before his memoirs are published in May, can't resist another airing of the fanatical grievance of his holy cause--to prove that Bush's successor cares only about "social transformation" of American society.
"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days," he says in a statement, "it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war...He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency--social transformation."
It's not clear whether Cheney pounced on Obama's first cautious reaction to the incident or simply chose to ignore his subsequent condemnation of a "systemic failure" and order of a top-to-bottom review of security procedures.
But as Cheney and other rabid Republicans continue their attacks on the Administration, the rest of us may take comfort in another observation of the longshoreman-philosopher who wrote "The True Believer" and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Ronald Reagan.
“It is cheering," Eric Hoffer wrote, "to see that the rats are still around--the ship is not sinking.”
Update: The White House responds on its blog, with Commmunications Director Dan Pfeiffer writing that "we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers. Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer."
Pfeiffer declares that "this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President."
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Defective Decade, Take Two
In the past ten years, to hold the second most powerful position in the nation, Americans cast more than a quarter of a billion ballots for such leaders with outstanding qualities as (in alphabetical order) Dick Cheney, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin.
This could not have been what a twentieth-century Vice President of the United States, John Nance Garner, had in mind when he declared that the position was "not worth a bucket of warm piss."
This could not have been what a twentieth-century Vice President of the United States, John Nance Garner, had in mind when he declared that the position was "not worth a bucket of warm piss."
Monday, December 28, 2009
A Defective Decade
If there were factory recalls for ages, the first product of the 21st century would be sent back for retooling. Politically, socially, morally, esthetically, the decade has been a disaster.
Economically, Paul Krugman grades it as "The Big Zero," but that may be too generous for a time when almost everything in American life has slid below previous standards in an orgy of what Pat Moynihan called defining deviancy down.
The decade gave us our first needlessly preemptive war, the degradation of individual privacy, the most painful depression in almost a century, and perhaps worst of all, a coarsening of sensibilities toward everything from torture to political discourse.
In the late 1990s, a time of budget surpluses and no foreign wars, Hillary Clinton called the impeachment of her husband "a vast right-wing conspiracy." It was neither vast nor a conspiracy, but it was the opening wedge in the politics of personal destruction that is now bedeviling one of the few accomplishments of the decade, the election of America's first African-American president, who is trying to govern despite a mindlessly monolithic opposition party.
Bill Clinton invited such chaos with incredible self-indulgence in the White House, but his behavior was no worse than JFK's, which did not lead to an impeachment that, among other things, may have inhibited attacks on Osama bin Laden for fear of having them called "Wag the Dog" diversions.
Al Gore started the new decade by distancing himself from Clinton, leading to Clarence Thomas' awarding of the presidency to George W. Bush and his self-selected vice president Dick Cheney.
The rest, unfortunately, is history, which offers no do-overs or replacement decades but from which it may be possible to learn and avoid repeating.
Economically, Paul Krugman grades it as "The Big Zero," but that may be too generous for a time when almost everything in American life has slid below previous standards in an orgy of what Pat Moynihan called defining deviancy down.
The decade gave us our first needlessly preemptive war, the degradation of individual privacy, the most painful depression in almost a century, and perhaps worst of all, a coarsening of sensibilities toward everything from torture to political discourse.
In the late 1990s, a time of budget surpluses and no foreign wars, Hillary Clinton called the impeachment of her husband "a vast right-wing conspiracy." It was neither vast nor a conspiracy, but it was the opening wedge in the politics of personal destruction that is now bedeviling one of the few accomplishments of the decade, the election of America's first African-American president, who is trying to govern despite a mindlessly monolithic opposition party.
Bill Clinton invited such chaos with incredible self-indulgence in the White House, but his behavior was no worse than JFK's, which did not lead to an impeachment that, among other things, may have inhibited attacks on Osama bin Laden for fear of having them called "Wag the Dog" diversions.
Al Gore started the new decade by distancing himself from Clinton, leading to Clarence Thomas' awarding of the presidency to George W. Bush and his self-selected vice president Dick Cheney.
The rest, unfortunately, is history, which offers no do-overs or replacement decades but from which it may be possible to learn and avoid repeating.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
The Way We Live Now
The terrorist who set his pants on fire yesterday on a crowded plane is a Christmas bookend to the Thanksgiving White House party-crashers--reminders that, as the Marx Brothers would put it, there is "no sanity clause" in our contract for security in today's world.
Both incidents undermine the belief that poverty and oppression are the main sources of danger, with the perpetrators turning to be scions of the wealthy, a Virginia vineyard owner and a Nigerian bank chairman.
The other usual suspects for blame will not lessen our anxiety, either. A Congressional Republican who is running for governor of Michigan, Pete Hoekstra jumps in to burble, "People have got to start connecting the dots here and maybe this is the thing that will connect the dots for the Obama administration."
The Detroit flight scare comes complete, not only with a political clown like Hoekstra but a heroic passenger, the Dutch filmmaker who suffered burns by jumping the fumbling terrorist and helping avert disaster for the 288 others on board.
In the coming days, there will be scrambling to place retroactive responsibility, particularly since the would-be bomber's father says he alerted authorities to the views of his son who reportedly lived in a $4 million London apartment.
There will also be "tightening" of airline terminal procedures and reassuring speeches from Homeland Security, but the sad truth is that breaches of safety for plane passengers, White House dinner guests and everybody else are just part of the way we live now.
While we must do everything possible to avoid them, they are going to keep happening, especially at times when most Americans are trying to enjoy the traditional comforts and pleasures of life that stir envy and rage in disordered minds. Luckily, at least for now, not all of their efforts are lethal.
Both incidents undermine the belief that poverty and oppression are the main sources of danger, with the perpetrators turning to be scions of the wealthy, a Virginia vineyard owner and a Nigerian bank chairman.
The other usual suspects for blame will not lessen our anxiety, either. A Congressional Republican who is running for governor of Michigan, Pete Hoekstra jumps in to burble, "People have got to start connecting the dots here and maybe this is the thing that will connect the dots for the Obama administration."
The Detroit flight scare comes complete, not only with a political clown like Hoekstra but a heroic passenger, the Dutch filmmaker who suffered burns by jumping the fumbling terrorist and helping avert disaster for the 288 others on board.
In the coming days, there will be scrambling to place retroactive responsibility, particularly since the would-be bomber's father says he alerted authorities to the views of his son who reportedly lived in a $4 million London apartment.
There will also be "tightening" of airline terminal procedures and reassuring speeches from Homeland Security, but the sad truth is that breaches of safety for plane passengers, White House dinner guests and everybody else are just part of the way we live now.
While we must do everything possible to avoid them, they are going to keep happening, especially at times when most Americans are trying to enjoy the traditional comforts and pleasures of life that stir envy and rage in disordered minds. Luckily, at least for now, not all of their efforts are lethal.
Friday, December 25, 2009
A Christmas Medical Tip
"Hiccups," says the Mayo Clinic, "may result from a large meal, alcoholic beverages or sudden excitement," which makes this the perfect-storm day for being afflicted.
Fortunately, there is a sure-fire cure, passed on to me by (brace yourself for major name-drop) John F. Kennedy's White House doctor, Janet Travell, an expert on muscle spasms who put him in a rocking chair and kept him from being bed-ridden.
Years later, when I was helping Dr. Travell find a publisher for her two-volume medical text on trigger-point therapy, she mentioned a paper she had written on one form of that treatment-—for hiccups.
Herewith Dr. Travell’s little-known but, in my experience, absolutely effective cure:
There is a small flap at the back of the upper palate called the uvula. Pressing the end of a butter knife or spoon handle firmly against it for three seconds or more will make the spasms stop. The only problem is to keep the hiccupper calm enough to avoid gagging.
In dozens of attempts with friends and family, I found it worked every time. As a magazine editor, I ran a brief item, and scores of readers confirmed that it did.
This treatment may also stop snoring, if you have the nerve to wake someone and try.
Fortunately, there is a sure-fire cure, passed on to me by (brace yourself for major name-drop) John F. Kennedy's White House doctor, Janet Travell, an expert on muscle spasms who put him in a rocking chair and kept him from being bed-ridden.
Years later, when I was helping Dr. Travell find a publisher for her two-volume medical text on trigger-point therapy, she mentioned a paper she had written on one form of that treatment-—for hiccups.
Herewith Dr. Travell’s little-known but, in my experience, absolutely effective cure:
There is a small flap at the back of the upper palate called the uvula. Pressing the end of a butter knife or spoon handle firmly against it for three seconds or more will make the spasms stop. The only problem is to keep the hiccupper calm enough to avoid gagging.
In dozens of attempts with friends and family, I found it worked every time. As a magazine editor, I ran a brief item, and scores of readers confirmed that it did.
This treatment may also stop snoring, if you have the nerve to wake someone and try.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Silent Night, DC
Washington is a ghost town as all through the House, not a creature is stirring, not even a mouse, and the Senate is quiet too after St. Nicholas showed up this morning to fill Democrats' stockings with 60 votes on health care and for Republicans leave only lumps of coal that they hope to transmute into electoral gold next year.
On his way out the door, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was not full of Christmas cheer. "I guarantee you," he vowed, "the people who voted for this bill are going to get an earful when they finally get home for the first time since Thanksgiving. This fight isn't over."
Not exactly "Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night," or as a New York Times analysis headlines it: "In Senate Health Care Vote, New Partisan Vitriol" to describe the first purely party-line vote on major legislation in modern times--"the culmination of more than a generation of partisan polarization of the American political system, and a precipitous decline in collegiality and collaboration in governing that seemed to move in inverse proportion to a rising influence of lobbying, money, the 24-hour news cycle and hostilities on talk shows and in the blogosphere."
As he left for the peace and quiet of Hawaii, President Obama hailed the impending bill as "the biggest social reform since the creation of Social Security in the 1930s," but non-Washington residents may be forgiven for seeing reams of muddle that have yet to be "reconciled" by warring legislators as something less than that.
In his excitement to unwrap the package this morning, Harry Reid drew laughter by almost voting the wrong way, and Robert Byrd evoked tears by casting his Aye "for my friend Ted Kennedy" as the Massachusetts senator's widow looked on.
They have all left town now, leaving the rest of us grateful for a "Silent Night" at last.
On his way out the door, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was not full of Christmas cheer. "I guarantee you," he vowed, "the people who voted for this bill are going to get an earful when they finally get home for the first time since Thanksgiving. This fight isn't over."
Not exactly "Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night," or as a New York Times analysis headlines it: "In Senate Health Care Vote, New Partisan Vitriol" to describe the first purely party-line vote on major legislation in modern times--"the culmination of more than a generation of partisan polarization of the American political system, and a precipitous decline in collegiality and collaboration in governing that seemed to move in inverse proportion to a rising influence of lobbying, money, the 24-hour news cycle and hostilities on talk shows and in the blogosphere."
As he left for the peace and quiet of Hawaii, President Obama hailed the impending bill as "the biggest social reform since the creation of Social Security in the 1930s," but non-Washington residents may be forgiven for seeing reams of muddle that have yet to be "reconciled" by warring legislators as something less than that.
In his excitement to unwrap the package this morning, Harry Reid drew laughter by almost voting the wrong way, and Robert Byrd evoked tears by casting his Aye "for my friend Ted Kennedy" as the Massachusetts senator's widow looked on.
They have all left town now, leaving the rest of us grateful for a "Silent Night" at last.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Do Voters Owe Obama an Apology?
As he assesses his performance in 2009, Barack Obama could claim he has been the victim of a bait-and-switch by Americans who voted him into office a year ago. Elected on a platform of Change, he was immediately asked to become the first responder to an economy falling apart.
He is not copping that plea, but the case should be made over the yowling from the do-nothing Right.
In a year-end interview, while defending himself on the health care imbroglio, the President notes that "the most important thing we did this year was to ensure that the financial system did not collapse," almost an aside to the reality that, after campaigning two years on one set of premises, he was thrust into a situation no one foresaw.
Forgotten in his falling approval ratings now are the weeks of "one president at a time," when Americans were so anxious to be rid of George W. Bush that Obama had to keep reminding them that he was not yet in the Oval Office.
Also lost in the mists of the pre-recession past are candidate Hillary Clinton's argument about being "ready on Day One," a test that Barack Obama passed with flying colors.
Ironically, conservative Andrew Sullivan is one of few along the political spectrum making the case that "2009 has been an extraordinarily successful year for Obama," citing his successes in reversing the Unitary Executive, bailing out the banks (however imperfectly) and passing a stimulus to shift the economy from "a tailspin to stabilization and some prospect of job growth next year."
Sullivan's conclusion: "Yes, we have. And yes, we still are the ones we've been waiting for--if we still care enough to swallow purism and pride and show up for the less emotionally satisfying grind of real, practical, incremental reform."
That may be too optimistic, but after months of floundering in the health care morass, this White House is showing signs of reorienting to do "a very hard pivot" and push for a new jobs bill in the State of the Union, and even approval ratings seem to be bottoming out like the unemployment rates.
This season of renewal may be the right time to start drowning out the catcalls and remember that Hope can spring eternal.
He is not copping that plea, but the case should be made over the yowling from the do-nothing Right.
In a year-end interview, while defending himself on the health care imbroglio, the President notes that "the most important thing we did this year was to ensure that the financial system did not collapse," almost an aside to the reality that, after campaigning two years on one set of premises, he was thrust into a situation no one foresaw.
Forgotten in his falling approval ratings now are the weeks of "one president at a time," when Americans were so anxious to be rid of George W. Bush that Obama had to keep reminding them that he was not yet in the Oval Office.
Also lost in the mists of the pre-recession past are candidate Hillary Clinton's argument about being "ready on Day One," a test that Barack Obama passed with flying colors.
Ironically, conservative Andrew Sullivan is one of few along the political spectrum making the case that "2009 has been an extraordinarily successful year for Obama," citing his successes in reversing the Unitary Executive, bailing out the banks (however imperfectly) and passing a stimulus to shift the economy from "a tailspin to stabilization and some prospect of job growth next year."
Sullivan's conclusion: "Yes, we have. And yes, we still are the ones we've been waiting for--if we still care enough to swallow purism and pride and show up for the less emotionally satisfying grind of real, practical, incremental reform."
That may be too optimistic, but after months of floundering in the health care morass, this White House is showing signs of reorienting to do "a very hard pivot" and push for a new jobs bill in the State of the Union, and even approval ratings seem to be bottoming out like the unemployment rates.
This season of renewal may be the right time to start drowning out the catcalls and remember that Hope can spring eternal.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Where Have All the Grownups Gone?
The Republican National Committee chairman, who has been charging audiences up to $20,000 a pop for his words of wisdom, offered up a free sample yesterday, accusing Democrats of being willing to “flip the bird to the American people” in the health care debate.
Michael Steele's elegant formulation came after Tom Coburn combined his credentials as an MD and evangelist on the Senate floor Sunday by suggesting, "What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight. That's what they ought to pray."
Dr. Coburn's entreaty for divine intervention was taken amiss by Dick Durbin, the Democratic Whip, who saw it as putting the evil eye on the failing health of 92-year-old Robert Byrd: "When it reaches a point where we're praying, asking people to pray, that senators wouldn't be able to answer the roll call, I think it has crossed the line."
Coburn's prayer went unanswered as Sen. Byrd made it to the 1 a.m. vote, which he cast with a raised finger followed by a fist pump.
If Durbin's line was meant to mark the boundaries of civil discourse in Washington, it has all but been erased in this season of good will as one of his own colleagues, Sheldon Whitehouse, compared Republican opponents to Nazis, Southern lynch mobs and "taunting crowds" of the French Revolution.
If and when health reform finally passes, it will take decades to learn how it has affected the health of the American people, but in the process, the body politic has come down with a high fever.
At a signing ceremony, Dr. Obama will have to write a powerful prescription to counter that.
Update: The Washington Post adds a holiday note by reporting Byrd's warm greeting by old Senate friends and his zinger for Coburn in a statement: "The Bible says love thy neighbor as thyself. I would hope that we could debate the pressing issues in front of the American public on their own merits without appealing to the Almighty for obstruction, of which there seems to be no short supply in Washington,"
Michael Steele's elegant formulation came after Tom Coburn combined his credentials as an MD and evangelist on the Senate floor Sunday by suggesting, "What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight. That's what they ought to pray."
Dr. Coburn's entreaty for divine intervention was taken amiss by Dick Durbin, the Democratic Whip, who saw it as putting the evil eye on the failing health of 92-year-old Robert Byrd: "When it reaches a point where we're praying, asking people to pray, that senators wouldn't be able to answer the roll call, I think it has crossed the line."
Coburn's prayer went unanswered as Sen. Byrd made it to the 1 a.m. vote, which he cast with a raised finger followed by a fist pump.
If Durbin's line was meant to mark the boundaries of civil discourse in Washington, it has all but been erased in this season of good will as one of his own colleagues, Sheldon Whitehouse, compared Republican opponents to Nazis, Southern lynch mobs and "taunting crowds" of the French Revolution.
If and when health reform finally passes, it will take decades to learn how it has affected the health of the American people, but in the process, the body politic has come down with a high fever.
At a signing ceremony, Dr. Obama will have to write a powerful prescription to counter that.
Update: The Washington Post adds a holiday note by reporting Byrd's warm greeting by old Senate friends and his zinger for Coburn in a statement: "The Bible says love thy neighbor as thyself. I would hope that we could debate the pressing issues in front of the American public on their own merits without appealing to the Almighty for obstruction, of which there seems to be no short supply in Washington,"
Monday, December 21, 2009
Updated Christmas Classics
This may be the year that George Bailey finally jumps off the bridge after Old Man Potter merges with Bank of America to hire Clarence as a lobbyist with his own private jet instead of those old-fashioned wings he has been wishing for.
For its annual Christmas Eve showing, in the age of James Cameron, "It's a Wonderful Life" needs serious updating, especially if it's being constantly interrupted by commercials against health care reform to freak out the citizens of Bedford Falls over any form of communal activism.
In other celluloid classics, Scrooge can cut a deal with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come aka Harry Reid (call it a Ben Nelson carveout) to escape those hellish chains, while the Grinch gets to keep all the Christmas stuff he stole with a Max Baucus exception for victims of environmental hazards (Mt. Crumpit in Whoville is notorious for its toxic atmosphere).
In the last century, the dream factories of Hollywood made sentimental believers of us all, but the Washington headline makers are teaching us how life really works. So let George Bailey take the plunge. If he survives, he can pay for his own health care out of the advance for the book deal that is sure to follow.
For its annual Christmas Eve showing, in the age of James Cameron, "It's a Wonderful Life" needs serious updating, especially if it's being constantly interrupted by commercials against health care reform to freak out the citizens of Bedford Falls over any form of communal activism.
In other celluloid classics, Scrooge can cut a deal with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come aka Harry Reid (call it a Ben Nelson carveout) to escape those hellish chains, while the Grinch gets to keep all the Christmas stuff he stole with a Max Baucus exception for victims of environmental hazards (Mt. Crumpit in Whoville is notorious for its toxic atmosphere).
In the last century, the dream factories of Hollywood made sentimental believers of us all, but the Washington headline makers are teaching us how life really works. So let George Bailey take the plunge. If he survives, he can pay for his own health care out of the advance for the book deal that is sure to follow.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
The Fed's Financial Death Panels
As Ben Bernanke, Time's Person of the Year, heads toward his second term as Chairman, there is no sign of relief for the most hapless victims of the bank bailouts--millions of retired Americans whose fixed incomes have plunged as a result of the Fed's near-zero interest rates.
In his cover interview, Bernanke explains that "convalescent" banks, which have been taking taxpayer nourishment for a year, are in "much better shape than they were. They are lending, but they are not lending enough to support a healthy recovery..."
As fiscal conservatives bewail future deficits that will burden generations of American children to come, the immediate price is being paid twice over by their grandparents now, both as taxpayers and private individuals whose prudent behavior during years of Wall Street excess has been rewarded by slashing their retirement incomes to a fraction of what they were as recently as a year ago.
Frank Rich underscores the irony today: "The Fed chairman was just as big a schnook as every other magical thinker in Washington and on Wall Street who believed that housing prices would go up in perpetuity to support an economy leveraged past the hilt. Unlike most of the others, it was Bernanke’s job to be ahead of the curve. Yet as recently as June of last year he could be found minimizing the possibility of a substantial economic downturn. And now we’re supposed to applaud him for putting his finger in the dike after disaster struck? This is defining American leadership down."
Even after giving Bernanke the benefit of doubt about foresight and hindsight, here is the Fed this week confirming its free-money-for-banks policy by holding interest rates near zero, as the largest deploy their profits (at least in part the result of giving retirees nothing in return for using their life savings) to repay bailout loans so they can start rewarding themselves with pre-bubble bonuses instead of making loans to get the economy moving again.
Bernanke tells Time that "we are trying to work with banks to make sure that they are, in fact, able to make as many good loans as possible, that they have enough capital, that they have enough short-term funding, and that the examiners and the regulators who work with the banks are not unduly restricting the loans that they make."
In a world where greed were not a given, that theoretically would seem sound, but real people with a Sarah Palinish mindset might see that as setting up financial death panels for those too old to earn new income and too experienced to start gambling what they have left in Wall Street's rigged casinos.
In his cover interview, Bernanke explains that "convalescent" banks, which have been taking taxpayer nourishment for a year, are in "much better shape than they were. They are lending, but they are not lending enough to support a healthy recovery..."
As fiscal conservatives bewail future deficits that will burden generations of American children to come, the immediate price is being paid twice over by their grandparents now, both as taxpayers and private individuals whose prudent behavior during years of Wall Street excess has been rewarded by slashing their retirement incomes to a fraction of what they were as recently as a year ago.
Frank Rich underscores the irony today: "The Fed chairman was just as big a schnook as every other magical thinker in Washington and on Wall Street who believed that housing prices would go up in perpetuity to support an economy leveraged past the hilt. Unlike most of the others, it was Bernanke’s job to be ahead of the curve. Yet as recently as June of last year he could be found minimizing the possibility of a substantial economic downturn. And now we’re supposed to applaud him for putting his finger in the dike after disaster struck? This is defining American leadership down."
Even after giving Bernanke the benefit of doubt about foresight and hindsight, here is the Fed this week confirming its free-money-for-banks policy by holding interest rates near zero, as the largest deploy their profits (at least in part the result of giving retirees nothing in return for using their life savings) to repay bailout loans so they can start rewarding themselves with pre-bubble bonuses instead of making loans to get the economy moving again.
Bernanke tells Time that "we are trying to work with banks to make sure that they are, in fact, able to make as many good loans as possible, that they have enough capital, that they have enough short-term funding, and that the examiners and the regulators who work with the banks are not unduly restricting the loans that they make."
In a world where greed were not a given, that theoretically would seem sound, but real people with a Sarah Palinish mindset might see that as setting up financial death panels for those too old to earn new income and too experienced to start gambling what they have left in Wall Street's rigged casinos.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Obama and the Benator
As Democrats worked feverishly to stuff Sen. Ben Nelson into his Christmas stocking, the President used his pre-holiday weekly address to hammer health insurer lobbyists and promise voters "the toughest measures we’ve ever taken to hold the insurance industry accountable."
The price for a Nelson this season was high, starting with possible restrictions by the states on abortion coverage and filling the package to the brim with what are delicately described as "other favors for his home state." The man George W. Bush called "the Benator" showed once again why he had rejected "Nellie" as too soft a nickname for his hard-to-buy centrist self.
On cue, the heavens dropped a blanket of snow on DC to cover the legislative wreckage in time for a possible Christmas Eve postcard of bringing health reform home for the holidays.
The final bill, the President promises, will have protections as "just one part of a landmark reform that will finally reduce the cost of health care...
"The insurance industry knows all this. That’s why they’re at it again, using their muscle in Washington to try to block a vote they know they will lose. They’re lobbying. They’re running ads. They’re spending millions of dollars to kill health insurance reform, just like they’ve done so many times before. They want to preserve a system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people."
With all due respect to a President who started out proposing serious reform and for too long watched it being torn apart by Congressional hacks, after the passage of this bill, the system will still work better for the health insurance industry--and the greediest of providers--than it does for the American people.
But consider the holiday toast from Paul Krugman: "By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable. But meanwhile, pass the health care bill."
With an oh-so-heavy heart, have a sip of the egg nog (hoping like hell it has no Kool-Aid in it) and second the motion.
The price for a Nelson this season was high, starting with possible restrictions by the states on abortion coverage and filling the package to the brim with what are delicately described as "other favors for his home state." The man George W. Bush called "the Benator" showed once again why he had rejected "Nellie" as too soft a nickname for his hard-to-buy centrist self.
On cue, the heavens dropped a blanket of snow on DC to cover the legislative wreckage in time for a possible Christmas Eve postcard of bringing health reform home for the holidays.
The final bill, the President promises, will have protections as "just one part of a landmark reform that will finally reduce the cost of health care...
"The insurance industry knows all this. That’s why they’re at it again, using their muscle in Washington to try to block a vote they know they will lose. They’re lobbying. They’re running ads. They’re spending millions of dollars to kill health insurance reform, just like they’ve done so many times before. They want to preserve a system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people."
With all due respect to a President who started out proposing serious reform and for too long watched it being torn apart by Congressional hacks, after the passage of this bill, the system will still work better for the health insurance industry--and the greediest of providers--than it does for the American people.
But consider the holiday toast from Paul Krugman: "By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable. But meanwhile, pass the health care bill."
With an oh-so-heavy heart, have a sip of the egg nog (hoping like hell it has no Kool-Aid in it) and second the motion.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The Era of Least-Worse Solutions
As the century's first decade winds down, what stands out to someone who has lived through many of them is how America's problems today are being "solved" by angry confrontations, sour and inconsistent compromises, hopeless shrugs and variations thereof.
Health care reform, the Afpak war, the crippled economy, the imperiled climate--all are being confronted, despite a rhetorically gifted president's formulations, by a population that seems to have lost faith in human progress or even simple competence.
Opinion polls show losses for Barack Obama but gains for whom or what? As voters on the left and right grow impatient with the Great Non-White Hope of a year ago, to whom or what are they turning? Certainly not to the Congressional leaders of a balkanized majority or a loyal opposition whose only program is to hold their breath until they turn blue against all spending or tax increases. Is there a serious voice in that cacophony of whining about government control?
On the brink of passing (or perhaps not) a bullet-ridden version of health care reform, Democrats are losing Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, union leaders and others all along their own political spectrum
The President has made an agonizing decision about more troops for Afghanistan, but even he is sounding an uncertain trumpet about eventual success in that hopelessly corrupt region.
In Copenhagen, he will encounter not a new era of international cooperation but the same old bickering between developed states and the third world, pointing fingers at one another.
As Barack Obama faces his second year in office, how or when will he get the chance to preside over an America that doesn't need fingers in dikes everywhere as it searches for the least-worse solutions to its flood of problems?
Health care reform, the Afpak war, the crippled economy, the imperiled climate--all are being confronted, despite a rhetorically gifted president's formulations, by a population that seems to have lost faith in human progress or even simple competence.
Opinion polls show losses for Barack Obama but gains for whom or what? As voters on the left and right grow impatient with the Great Non-White Hope of a year ago, to whom or what are they turning? Certainly not to the Congressional leaders of a balkanized majority or a loyal opposition whose only program is to hold their breath until they turn blue against all spending or tax increases. Is there a serious voice in that cacophony of whining about government control?
On the brink of passing (or perhaps not) a bullet-ridden version of health care reform, Democrats are losing Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, union leaders and others all along their own political spectrum
The President has made an agonizing decision about more troops for Afghanistan, but even he is sounding an uncertain trumpet about eventual success in that hopelessly corrupt region.
In Copenhagen, he will encounter not a new era of international cooperation but the same old bickering between developed states and the third world, pointing fingers at one another.
As Barack Obama faces his second year in office, how or when will he get the chance to preside over an America that doesn't need fingers in dikes everywhere as it searches for the least-worse solutions to its flood of problems?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Insult to Injury Over Health Care
A touch of farce is just what the Senate scrimmage needed, and Joe Lieberman, bless his hypocritical heart, provided it at yesterday's White House meeting.
While the President tried to get his dyslexic troops marching in the same direction for a final vote, the Senator from Self-Important Sanctimony made a bid for sympathy from the assembled colleagues he has been holding hostage.
“What’s happening," he said, "is not any fun for me.”
Like the parent killer pleading for mercy as an orphan, Lieberman is now so deep in the two-faced logic that has marked his career he has lost all sight of cause and effect.
Long-time Lieberman watchers will recall his performances in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings when he announced his support and voted no, followed by the Bill Clinton impeachment at which, after denouncing his party's President for "disgraceful" and "immoral" behavior," he cast his ballot for acquittal.
His current 180 on allowing those from 55 to 65 to enroll in Medicare is just the latest flip-flop, which critics attribute to his financial support from health insurers but can just as easily be seen as the result of his pathological need for the spotlight.
If Joe Lieberman is not enjoying having the White House Press Secretary describe as the object of the President's concern "members of the democratic caucus, including independents who caucus with the Democrats," such attentions must be as repellent to him as George W. Bush's State of the Union smooch and the coverage he drew on the campaign trail last year supporting John McCain.
When Lieberman complained yesterday about the pleasure deficit in his life, Sen. Sherrod Brown, who has championed the public option, answered, “You know, Joe, it’s not fun for us either” and the President reportedly joined in to say, “Why don’t we all begin to have some fun?” he said. “Let’s pass the bill.”
Not until Joe Lieberman has squeezed the last bit of TV face time out of the impasse.
While the President tried to get his dyslexic troops marching in the same direction for a final vote, the Senator from Self-Important Sanctimony made a bid for sympathy from the assembled colleagues he has been holding hostage.
“What’s happening," he said, "is not any fun for me.”
Like the parent killer pleading for mercy as an orphan, Lieberman is now so deep in the two-faced logic that has marked his career he has lost all sight of cause and effect.
Long-time Lieberman watchers will recall his performances in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings when he announced his support and voted no, followed by the Bill Clinton impeachment at which, after denouncing his party's President for "disgraceful" and "immoral" behavior," he cast his ballot for acquittal.
His current 180 on allowing those from 55 to 65 to enroll in Medicare is just the latest flip-flop, which critics attribute to his financial support from health insurers but can just as easily be seen as the result of his pathological need for the spotlight.
If Joe Lieberman is not enjoying having the White House Press Secretary describe as the object of the President's concern "members of the democratic caucus, including independents who caucus with the Democrats," such attentions must be as repellent to him as George W. Bush's State of the Union smooch and the coverage he drew on the campaign trail last year supporting John McCain.
When Lieberman complained yesterday about the pleasure deficit in his life, Sen. Sherrod Brown, who has championed the public option, answered, “You know, Joe, it’s not fun for us either” and the President reportedly joined in to say, “Why don’t we all begin to have some fun?” he said. “Let’s pass the bill.”
Not until Joe Lieberman has squeezed the last bit of TV face time out of the impasse.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Adultery for Dummies, 2009 Update
As Tiger Woods is pelted by wisecracks about dating women with 8X10 glossies and Gov. Mark Sanford's wife decides to divorce him over his South American travels, the year's body count is mounting for public figures brought down by failure to rein in their private parts.
Such consequences of low behavior by men in high places (gender equality has not yet evolved enough to ensnare powerful women in sex scandals, but give them time), suggest guidelines for who gets away with what these days--and for how long.
Congressmen who cheat have a better chance of career survival than governors, perhaps because of low public expectations. Eliot Spitzer, who was elected as the scourge of Wall Street manipulators, had to leave the New York Governor's mansion, but Sen. David Vitter is still legislating away after his call-girl disgrace, and just last weekend Max Baucus drew a pass for an iffy confession about juggling a wife back home and a girlfriend on his Senate payroll.
What's more, penalties are not permanent. Spitzer has reemerged as a pundit and is now thinking about running for state controller next year, while his former call girl has embarked on a love-advice column for the New York Post. Prurience conquers all.
The prospects for Tiger Woods' rehabilitation may be reflected in what happened to baseball's Alex Rodriguez this year. In 2008, both his game and reputation tanked during an extramarital affair with Madonna and charges of steroid use.
Now, after a divorce, the rehabilitated and single A-Rod entered a performance-enhancing relationship with Kate Hudson, who sat quietly beaming in the stands as he led his team to a World Series victory. At the Manhattan victory parade, fans carried signs thanking Goldie Hawn's little girl for their new, improved hero.
Celebrity bed-hopping is now so familiar that it may run the risk of become passé for a jaded public. The newest online trend is bed-jumping, which doesn't even require a partner, just a springy mattress in a hotel room and a camera to record how high the thrill-seeker can get. Too late no doubt to save Tiger's and Sanford's marriages, but so much easier on reputations and families.
Such consequences of low behavior by men in high places (gender equality has not yet evolved enough to ensnare powerful women in sex scandals, but give them time), suggest guidelines for who gets away with what these days--and for how long.
Congressmen who cheat have a better chance of career survival than governors, perhaps because of low public expectations. Eliot Spitzer, who was elected as the scourge of Wall Street manipulators, had to leave the New York Governor's mansion, but Sen. David Vitter is still legislating away after his call-girl disgrace, and just last weekend Max Baucus drew a pass for an iffy confession about juggling a wife back home and a girlfriend on his Senate payroll.
What's more, penalties are not permanent. Spitzer has reemerged as a pundit and is now thinking about running for state controller next year, while his former call girl has embarked on a love-advice column for the New York Post. Prurience conquers all.
The prospects for Tiger Woods' rehabilitation may be reflected in what happened to baseball's Alex Rodriguez this year. In 2008, both his game and reputation tanked during an extramarital affair with Madonna and charges of steroid use.
Now, after a divorce, the rehabilitated and single A-Rod entered a performance-enhancing relationship with Kate Hudson, who sat quietly beaming in the stands as he led his team to a World Series victory. At the Manhattan victory parade, fans carried signs thanking Goldie Hawn's little girl for their new, improved hero.
Celebrity bed-hopping is now so familiar that it may run the risk of become passé for a jaded public. The newest online trend is bed-jumping, which doesn't even require a partner, just a springy mattress in a hotel room and a camera to record how high the thrill-seeker can get. Too late no doubt to save Tiger's and Sanford's marriages, but so much easier on reputations and families.
"Smartest Person in the Room"
Watching President Obama on 60 Minutes recalls a memorable exchange from the 1987 movie, "Broadcast News," in which Holly Hunter's boss taunts her, "It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room."
With a stricken expression, she answers, "No. It's awful."
Last night, as he was being pressed by Steve Kroft about the mess in Afghanistan, the President responded, not with dismay but beyond it with a laugh, explaining "this is really hard. And there's not a question that you asked that I haven't asked in meetings, and that I don't ask myself."
His reaction is a reminder of the limitations of brains alone in the life-and-death decisions made in the White House. After eight years of low intellectual expectations, the American people were ready for a renaissance in the coming of what a new Administration calls "smart power," but America's problems are beyond the multiple-choice format of TV quiz shows.
In citing Obama's West Point announcement of the troop escalation, Kroft told him "you seemed very analytical, detached, not emotional. The tone seemed to be, 'I've studied this situation very hard. It's a real mess. The options aren't very good. But we need to go ahead and do this.' There were no exhortations or promises of victory. Why? Why that tone?"
The President disagreed, calling it "the most emotional speech that I've made...I was looking out over a group of cadets, some of whom were going to be deployed in Afghanistan. And potentially some might not come back. There is not a speech that I've made that hit me in the gut as much as that speech."
That kind of decision, Barack Obama was reminding us, has to be made not just by a president who is "the smartest person in the room" about today's pluses and minuses but who has the reserves of emotional intelligence and moral imagination to absorb what it will mean for the future.
Just being smarter and more humane than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is setting the bar too low.
With a stricken expression, she answers, "No. It's awful."
Last night, as he was being pressed by Steve Kroft about the mess in Afghanistan, the President responded, not with dismay but beyond it with a laugh, explaining "this is really hard. And there's not a question that you asked that I haven't asked in meetings, and that I don't ask myself."
His reaction is a reminder of the limitations of brains alone in the life-and-death decisions made in the White House. After eight years of low intellectual expectations, the American people were ready for a renaissance in the coming of what a new Administration calls "smart power," but America's problems are beyond the multiple-choice format of TV quiz shows.
In citing Obama's West Point announcement of the troop escalation, Kroft told him "you seemed very analytical, detached, not emotional. The tone seemed to be, 'I've studied this situation very hard. It's a real mess. The options aren't very good. But we need to go ahead and do this.' There were no exhortations or promises of victory. Why? Why that tone?"
The President disagreed, calling it "the most emotional speech that I've made...I was looking out over a group of cadets, some of whom were going to be deployed in Afghanistan. And potentially some might not come back. There is not a speech that I've made that hit me in the gut as much as that speech."
That kind of decision, Barack Obama was reminding us, has to be made not just by a president who is "the smartest person in the room" about today's pluses and minuses but who has the reserves of emotional intelligence and moral imagination to absorb what it will mean for the future.
Just being smarter and more humane than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is setting the bar too low.
Friday, December 11, 2009
GOP Atwitter Over Obama
Ten months and trillions of dollars after taking office, Barack Obama has finally found a way to make Republicans happy: Go to Europe, do a Bush impersonation, order Freedom Fries and tell those pusillanimous peace-mongers they would be toast if Americans weren’t always ready to come over there and kill bad people.
Dick Cheney hasn’t weighed in yet, but Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are thrilled with the President’s Nobel speech.
“I liked what he said," says she about Obama’s proposal for terrorist death panels. "Of course, war is the last thing I believe any American wants to engage in, but it's necessary."
A ‘very historic speech,” says the author of the Contract with America, “having a liberal president who goes to Oslo on behalf of a peace prize and reminds the committee that they would not be free, they wouldn't be able to have a peace prize, without force.”
In the Age of Twitter, it may be that Palin and Gingrich never got to the second half of the President’s oration, the part where he said that “no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint...Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith--for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.”
But Obama may have stumbled onto the secret of bipartisanship—give Republicans his views in very small doses, not 2000 pages of health care reform. Then they can do what they did with those big novels back in school, mark up the juicy parts and skip all that boring stuff between.
Tomorrow’s assignment: Tolstoy’s “War.”
Dick Cheney hasn’t weighed in yet, but Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are thrilled with the President’s Nobel speech.
“I liked what he said," says she about Obama’s proposal for terrorist death panels. "Of course, war is the last thing I believe any American wants to engage in, but it's necessary."
A ‘very historic speech,” says the author of the Contract with America, “having a liberal president who goes to Oslo on behalf of a peace prize and reminds the committee that they would not be free, they wouldn't be able to have a peace prize, without force.”
In the Age of Twitter, it may be that Palin and Gingrich never got to the second half of the President’s oration, the part where he said that “no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint...Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith--for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.”
But Obama may have stumbled onto the secret of bipartisanship—give Republicans his views in very small doses, not 2000 pages of health care reform. Then they can do what they did with those big novels back in school, mark up the juicy parts and skip all that boring stuff between.
Tomorrow’s assignment: Tolstoy’s “War.”
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Ghosts at the Peace Podium
Accepting the Nobel Prize, Barack Obama deferred to "Schweitzer and King, Marshall and Mandela" as well as Ghandi and a long line of peacemakers in parsing the irony of a wartime leader being honored in their company, as he acknowledged "the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.
"I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago, 'Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.' As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak--nothing passive, nothing naïve--in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King."
It is this display of what Obama at one point characterized as "moral imagination" that may best explain why he was standing there today. In the crowd of ghosts around him at the podium, perhaps most significant was the one never mentioned, George W. Bush, whose lack of such sensitivity was surely critical in the Nobel Committee's decision to honor his untried successor, the 21st century figure who frightened the world with a vision of where power without it can lead.
In all the sneering at Obama's unworthiness for the award, it may be best seen as being given for his embodiment of the hope that morality does not have to be divorced from power in this dangerous world.
"As the world grows smaller," he said today, "you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things...
"And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities--their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
"Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam...These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint...
"Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith--for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
"Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
"But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place...
"For if we lose that faith--if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace--then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass."
No wartime leader ever said it better.
"I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago, 'Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.' As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak--nothing passive, nothing naïve--in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King."
It is this display of what Obama at one point characterized as "moral imagination" that may best explain why he was standing there today. In the crowd of ghosts around him at the podium, perhaps most significant was the one never mentioned, George W. Bush, whose lack of such sensitivity was surely critical in the Nobel Committee's decision to honor his untried successor, the 21st century figure who frightened the world with a vision of where power without it can lead.
In all the sneering at Obama's unworthiness for the award, it may be best seen as being given for his embodiment of the hope that morality does not have to be divorced from power in this dangerous world.
"As the world grows smaller," he said today, "you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things...
"And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities--their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
"Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam...These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint...
"Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith--for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
"Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
"But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place...
"For if we lose that faith--if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace--then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass."
No wartime leader ever said it better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)