Categories
Excerpts from my Journals History Politics Post 9/11 Generation Reflections The War on Terrorism

September 11

Excerpts from my Journal
[digg-reddit-me][Undated; between entries for late December 2001 and mid-January 2002]

I didn’t cry until I came home in late December. I knew no one who died. I knew no one who had survived the tragedy. The towers had never been a part of my life.

I cried when I saw the newspapers from the days after the attack. When I read about how television had stopped in the face of the crisis When I remembered catching the last minutes of the TV concert and at an off-campus party on Cambridge Street. When I read the comics, when I read the sports pages about the Mets and the Yankees – especially the Mets and their desperate dash to make the play-offs. When I heard phone calls a person high in the tower made to a person further down, or the calls from people on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Reading The Onion, and watching God cry. When I see the Mayor – Rudy Giuliani, man of the year, mayor of America – when I realize the leadership it took for him to lead the city during and after the attacks. When I drive by the city and notice where the towers are not anymore, and I realize that the island over there is still Manhattan.

As all these memories come together, focused on the moment Isaac, my roommate, shouted at me to get out of bed – and I stood, sat, started transfixed by the smoke and fire – and that terrible footage of the plane headed straight for the building. Unreality had taken hold. I knew it wasn’t a dream, but still, it was not real as I had understood and still understand reality.

I know this terrible thing happened – and that firemen are still removing bodies from the rubble, but it is not real. There’s no way it could be.

So, in a year of Bush league politics, the country rallied around our President – no matter his failings. He is the Stars and Stripes. Disgustingly, this was abused.

But America will survive the abuses of power. After all, it survived September 11, World War II, the Great Depression, the Civil War, and the British invasion.

My country – may she always be right and stay true to her course.

There are two main emotional touchstones which those of us who lived through the Bush years will look back to:

  • September 11, and the days afterwards;
  • the period from September 2002 until March 2003, the build-up to and the opening days of, the Iraq war.

All these years on, it is hard to see the period after September 11 as anything but a missed opportunity – for a president who had won in a disputed election to become the president of all Americans by creating some form of national unity government in response to the crisis – or to call on all Americans to do their part to pro-actively make the world better – something, anything. Instead, he told us to go out and buy stuff, and to be very afraid, and that if we offered him enough leeway, he would be able to protect us. He used the crisis as a political wedge issue; he used it to seize more power for the presidency; he used it to win elections for his party and himself. He abused his office and this moment in history.

It is difficult to remember today that they held vigils in Tehran; that the Irananian moderates in charge of Iran at the time offered to (and did) help us take down the Taliban, and that they wanted to make peace with America ((We didn’t respond.)); that in France, Le Monde declared that all citizens of the world were New Yorkers now; that we, as Americans, realized what petty squabbles we had been having for the past decades; that we together honored those men and women who served as firefighters and policemen, as soldiers and spies, whose job it was to protect and serve.

That day – the horrendous attack of that day – reminded those around the world, and those in America, what we had in common, and what all of us admired about this great nation.

Which is why, nearly seven years later, what I feel most is regret – that the opportunity that presents itself with any tragedy was squandered, and then abused. I was amazed when reading the entry posted above that this squandered opportunity, this abuse of power, was already evident while the ruins at Ground Zero were still smoldering.

Members of the Bush administration are fond of saying that everything changed on September 11. They have been ridiculed for it – and rightly so, because for them, that concept has been used to justify the policies they were promoting beforehand. It was rather convenient for them that September 11 changed everything – and proved that what they had been promoting before September 11 was more needed now than ever before – expanded executive powers, an expansion of surveillance powers, war with Iraq, tax cuts, reduced financial regulation, and more Republicans in the Congress.

But what the mockers miss is that something fundamental did change on 9/11. The American people were forced to focus on the world again; many of us no longer felt safe – even if our fears were overstated, and outside of the major cities, almost entirely unfounded. The more fundamental change was emotional, a change of timbre. We were forced to reckon with the fact that some people in the world were so willing to kill us, indiscriminately, that they would kill themselves in order to do so; and we realized that our values and our ways of life have far more in common than in opposition. Despite the partisan attempts to take advantage of this crisis and the polarization that resulted, these emotional facts remain latent. We still remember – however dimly – that we are one people, with far more uniting us than dividing us; and we remember that in our moment of weakness, the world mourned our losses with us and stood with us; and we remember that there are those who wish us harm and who are willing to sacrifice themselves in their cause.

None of this is exceptional, but it sets the stage for the story to unfold.

Categories
Excerpts from my Journals History Politics Post 9/11 Generation Prose Reflections The War on Terrorism

An emotional calculus

In evaluating the legacy of the administration of George W. Bush and where we need to go as a nation from here, we need to undertake the delicate, obscure, and imprecise art of projecting how the future will be affected by our decisions today, taking into account the many elements of the past and present that are out of our control. This unknowability of the future and how our decisions affect is one of the essential pragmatic and moral arguments in favor of democracy – because we cannot determine the optimal course using reason, we all take shared responsibility for making our best judgment.Emotions are our attempt, as beings of limited understanding and knowledge, to synthesize the great unconscious mass of our knowledge – the subtle hints, the forgotten information, the half-remembered, the projections based on our past experience – with that which we have analyzed and understood.

What I propose to do here is to perform a kind of emotional calculus – which I think is commonly practiced but rarely described in these terms. Reason is often said to be the light illuminating the darkness; but the future is made of a darkness impenetrable to reason’s light; instead of walking confidently down a lighted path, we instead must grope in the darkness, struggling to identify how best to make our way, and only slowly coming to understand our surroundings.

This is the first part of a three part argument – to be posted on the blog (in at least three parts) over the next week – based on my understanding of two events from the early days of the Bush administration and a more recent event, and how these events relate to what might be called grandiosely the American psyche – but more aptly would be called my personal insight into what Carl Jung identified as the collective unconscious. I would call this attempt David Brooks-esque without being leavened by humor.

My method begins with my own personal experiences and follows an emotional logic.

Categories
Excerpts from my Journals History Politics

What it means to be a politician

[digg-reddit-me]Excerpts from my Journals
[Late December 2001; lines jotted down from a Richard Nixon speech.]

Everett Dirksen was a politician in the finest sense of that much abused word. If he were here, I think he might put it this way:

A politician knows that more important than the bill that is proposed is the law that is passed.

A politician knows that his friends are not always his allies, and that his adversaries are not his enemies.

A politician knows how to make the process of democracy work, and loves the intricate workings of the democratic system.

A politician knows not only how to count votes, but how to make his vote count.

A politician knows that his words are his weapons, but that his word is his bond.

A politician knows that only if he leaves room for discussion and room for concession can he gain room for maneuver.

A politician knows that the best way to be a winner is to make the other side feel it does not have to be a loser.

And a politician – in the Dirksen tradition-knows both the name of the game and the rules of the game, and he seeks his ends through the time-honored democratic means…

As he could persuade, he could be persuaded. His respect for other points of view lent weight to his own point of view. He was not afraid to change his position if he were persuaded that he had been wrong. That tolerance and sympathy were elements of his character and that character gained him the affection and esteem of millions of his fellow Americans…

As a man of politics, he knew both victory and defeat.

As a student of philosophy, he knew the triumph of and the tragedy and the misery of life.

And as a student of history, he knew that some men achieve greatness, others are not recognized for their greatness until after their death.

From Lend Me Your Ears, a compilation of the great speeches throughout history by William Safire. Pages 220 – 221. The speech was given by Richard Nixon on September 9, 1969 as a eulogy at the Capitol Rotunda for Senator Dirksen of Illinois. (The eloquence of the speech – and it’s odd placement between the great eulogies by Cicero and Lincoln makes me suspect this may have been a Safire production. I have a feeling this speech may have been a Safire production.)

This Senate seat is now held by Senator Barack Obama.

Categories
History Morality

Einstein’s Religiousity

Do you believe in God?

I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.

Some of us might be more definite in our beliefs.  But the key that Albert Einstein here acknowledged, and that we all must acknowledge, is that our individual – and even communal – beliefs must be understood with proper humility.

Earlier in his life, Mr. Einstein was quoted:

Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.

This insight seems far more spiritual and far more catholic than anything the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has produced in the past two years.

Categories
Election 2008 History Obama Politics

Idealism in the service of realism

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor for Mr. Clinton, has been a prominent blog-supporter of Mr. Obama’s – stating from the beginning that he saw more potential in Mr. Obama and his ideas than he saw in a return to the Clinton presidency or in Ms. Clinton’s plans.  Last Saturday, Mr. Reich discussed his personal relationship with Mr. Clinton and described the historical context of his choice to back his old friend’s current nemesis:

Neither John F. Kennedy nor his brother Robert were idealists. They were realists who understood the importance of idealism in the service of realism. They grasped the central political fact that little can be achieved in Washington unless or until the public is energized and mobilized to push for it; the status quo is simply too powerful.  The ideals they enunciated helped mobilized the nation politically. That mobilization contributed to the subsequent passage of civil rights and voting rights laws, Medicare, and environmental protection. For purposes of practical electoral strategy as well as high-minded moral aspiration, they never tired of reminding the nation of its founding principles – most fundamentally, that all men are created equal.

Categories
Election 2008 History Obama Politics

Experience in history

George F. Will contrasting experience and inexperience in history:

The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America’s worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow.

Categories
History Politics

An Historical Footnote: Eisenhower’s Baptism

Eisenhower

[digg-reddit-me]During the 1952 campaign for the presidency, word leaked that Dwight D. Eisenhower had never been baptized. Though he considered himself a Christian, he had never been inducted into a faith. He responded at the time by saying he would be baptized when he was able to get around to it – probably after his election. And so, on February 1, 1953, twelve days after his Inauguration, President Eisenhower was baptized, the only president to be baptized in office, and formally “staked down” his faith at the National Presbyterian Church on Washington’s Connecticut Avenue.

It apparently was an age in which religion was taken seriously – but not in the dogmatic way it is today. After all, Eisenhower, of “Oh, goddammit, we forgot the silent prayer” fame, was able to be judged not on his private religious acts, but on his public record.

It might be nice to reintroduce that as the standard again.

Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 History Obama Politics

Only If We Become a Great People


via Flickr

[digg-reddit-me]Grace Lee Boggs, a prominent writer and speaker who has been involved in the civil rights and feminist movements for the past sixty years, wrote in The Nation this past week about Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Legacy of Change”. She writes:

At 92, going on 93, I am fortunate to still be around to rejoice at the new energies being unleashed all across this country by the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. In his person and in his prose, Obama embodies the achievements of the great movements of the twentieth century and the hope that by building on these movements we can become the agents of change that we urgently need in our country and in the world in the twenty-first century.

The challenges before us now are not unlike those King described: ending our catastrophic occupation of Iraq, addressing global warming, rebuilding cities and industries devastated by globalization, reducing the growing gulf between the haves and the have-nots. These demand huge changes, not only in our institutions but in ourselves. To become part of the solution, we, as a people, must recognize that we are a large part of the problem. To change the world, we must practice a much more active and participatory concept of American and global citizenship.

Obama can become a great President only if we become a great people. Though his image inspires us, Obama alone is not the movement for change. We have the right and the duty to create the vision that we want him to represent. Instead of projecting desired outcomes on his redemptive persona, instead of viewing ourselves solely as followers of a charismatic leader, we can and must become the leaders the nation has been looking for. This is the best way to make us less vulnerable to corporate funders and lobbyists who refract our values for private gain.

None of us can step back from the responsibility of becoming part of the solution. Because of the struggles of working people in factories and on farms, African-Americans, women, Chicanos, Native Americans and immigrants, gay people, youth and the disabled, all of us have a new “burden and responsibility.” All of us have the opportunity to create a more human, more socially conscious and more ecologically responsible nation. I cannot imagine a better way to celebrate King’s birthday and to honor his true legacy.

Unstated but implicit in Boggs’s message is that America had great opportunities along with its great challenges at the end of the 1960s – and that we as a nation failed to rise to the occasion. Instead we muddled through – and with every step forward, we took one backwards. By the late sixties, with the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy, and growing internal chaos, we had put off the challenges of that time – but not for long: we were forced to reckon with the stagflation of the 1970s and with the simmering “Cold” War until 1989. And today, we now must reckon with the destruction of our environment, with global instability, and with a growing gap between the rich and poor. Today, the problems deferred in the late 1960s have been growing more severe. Globalization, global warming and global instability; executive overreach, civil liberties, and terrorism.

For a brief time during the 1960s, America showed signs of becoming a great people. ((I think that there is much to admire and much to find fault with in the 1960s radical movements. And I believe that America has often shown signs of greatness – and a few times in its history lived up to them.)) We approached some greatness, some moment of reckoning – a grand resolution and revolution in our institutions and our way of life. But, in the end, the sixties radicals devolved into anarchy and violence; and those not consumed by the movement, melted back into society. The 1960s generation failed because they did not follow through – and instead began to war with one another.

Boggs says that: “Obama can become a great President only if we become a great people.” She focuses on Obama – and rightly so. At this moment, he is the candidate who can start a movement and who will focus on the long-term challenges America faces. But her conclusion is too narrow – this is not about Obama very much at all. We will only be challenged by a great president if we become a great people.

As Obama has acknowledged – the movement rising behind him is not about him – it’s about us, and what it says about us to look beyond the stale politics of tears and smears, of Bushes and Clintons, of money and more money; there are many who are cynical – with good reason. There are even many reasons to believe that Obama – for all of his strength of character – may well fall victim to the lure of power.

Truly, Barack Obama can only become a great president if we, the people, force him to be. There is a very specific but difficult to pinpoint relationship between the people and a president. It is almost certainly a sign of America’s descent from its republican ideals that the mood of the country is profoundly shaped by the occupant of the White House.

Categories
Election 2008 History Politics The Clintons

Bill and Hillary: You’re no LBJ

Andrew Sullivan has some strong words in response to Hillary’s comparisons of herself and one of our most flawed presidents:

Johnson risked his entire coalition on the issue of civil rights – a heroic act that still reverberates today. The Clintons wouldn’t risk a smidgen of a percentage point in a Mark Penn poll for the duration of a news cycle. That’s the difference.

Categories
History Politics The Clintons

People Who Play the Game

All Too Human

[digg-reddit-me]George Stephanopolos wrote in his memior, All Too Human, about a conversation he once had with journalist I. F. Stone:

“You covered Washington for so long,” I asked, “weren’t you ever tempted to go into politics yourself?”

“Once,” he answered. Sixty-five years earlier, when Izzy was in high school, the political “boss” of his class had offered him a place on the editorial board of the school paper ‘his dream job’ in return for campaign help. But whatever temptation Izzy felt was quickly overwhelmed by a wave of nausea and a vow never to approach active politics again.

I respected that sentiment, envied it, felt slightly shamed by it, but didn’t share it. My new work seemed too thrilling to renounce, and I was a natural at the game of politics: at knowing who knew what I needed to know, at absorbing the rhythms of legislative life by walking the halls, at preparing committee hearing questions for my boss that might get picked up by the press, at learning to anticipate his political needs and to use his position to advance my issues too, at succumbing to the lure of the closed room and the subtle power rush that comes from hearing words I wrote come out of someone else’s mouth.

A democracy needs people like Izzy on the outside to keep it honest, but it also needs people on the inside to make it work – people who will play the game for the sake of getting good things done. But you have to be careful. Your first deal is like your first scotch. It burns, might make you feel nauseous. If you’re like Izzy, once is enough. If you’re like me, you get to like it. Then to need it.

George Stephanopoulos
All Too Human
pages 17-18