How I learned to be a pragmatist

I've mentioned before that in my professional life I am the director of a small nonprofit. Our mission is about re-directing youth who are starting to head in the wrong direction. One of the things we do is work with youth (and their families) who have developed delinquency records prior to turning 10 years old.

What we find with those children are that 100% of them live in poverty. About 90% have parents with criminal histories and we see incidents of domestic violence, child abuse/neglect, drug abuse/mental illness in about 80% of the families. Also - about 75% of the children are African American. In other words, we're working right at the intersection of race and poverty...what the Children's Defense Fund calls the Cradle to Prison Pipeline.

This program involves heavy collaboration with our county - Child Protection, District Attorney, Public Health, etc. Most of the actual people involved are well-meaning white liberals in the land of "Minnesota Nice."

But at one point, we realized that these well-meaning people had adopted an attitude of punishing the parents in an attempt to rescue the child. Its a common approach in social services and it smacks of white privilege. Here's why...

As I said, most of the families involved are African American. For very good reasons, they don't trust "the system" to help either themselves or their children. So when the district attorney would contact them and say, "work with this program or we'll prosecute you," it was yet another threat to their family from that system. And they did everything they could to protect themselves from that - including resisting the intervention.

Its true that many of these parents were not providing the kind of home and security that their children needed. But every one of them - without a single exception - love their children and want only the best for them. But you know what...they don't trust us white folks to be much help.

So the cycle of punish and rescue continued and the children suffered.

We eventually figured out what was happening and made some adjustments. Our staff now approach these parents from the standpoint of being there to work FOR them to find ways to help their children succeed. That takes time and most of them don't believe us at first. But we stick with it and eventually form the relationship that's necessary for them to get the support and accountability they need.

So while I certainly won't join folks like Rick Santorum who think poor people should simply be left to suffer on their own, I also can't align myself with (mostly white) liberals who - in the name of helping these children - storm into situations they know nothing about and think they know what's best. Its do-gooderism run amok.

I'm not making an equivalency argument here. I'm just giving you one example (of many I could relay) about how in my experience I've come to see that any ideology that is not grounded in what works for real people facing real challenges can very quickly become part of the problem instead of the solution.

For Christina

I'd like to remind everyone of what we could have learned one year ago today.

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations –- to try and pose some order on the chaos and make sense out of that which seems senseless...

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds...

As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together...

We recognize our own mortality, and we are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this Earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame -– but rather, how well we have loved -- and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better.

Of course those are the words of President Obama at the memorial held in Tuscon four days later. He reminded us of our better angels and how, out of a senseless act, could come a commitment to what's really important.

Imagine -- imagine for a moment, here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that some day she, too, might play a part in shaping her nation’s future. She had been elected to her student council. She saw public service as something exciting and hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. All of us -– we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations.

As has already been mentioned, Christina was given to us on September 11th, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called “Faces of Hope.” On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child’s life. “I hope you help those in need,” read one. “I hope you know all the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart." "I hope you jump in rain puddles.”

If there are rain puddles in Heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. And here on this Earth -- here on this Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and we commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit.

Enthusiasm Gap

I have the feeling that perhaps I'm developing something in common with Republicans...I can't seem to get enthused about any of their presidential candidates.

Of course, my problem isn't that I'm having trouble getting enthused about voting for them - heaven forbid. I'm having trouble ginning up enthusiasm for bashing them.

Perhaps my whack-a-moler needs re-charging.

I know they've had a week that pretty much went off the charts with lying, racism, homophobia, etc. But I just can't seem to find the energy to care.

So I'm running some diagnostics trying to find out if this attitude is a bug or a feature.

Could it be a temporary malfunction of a personal nature (ie, I'm distracted or burned out)?

Or is it perhaps that I want to shout to the world...WHAT DID YOU EXPECT FROM THESE IDIOTS?!!!

I guess I'll watch the debate tonight and see if that re-boots the outrage.

;-)

Obama: "We're turning the page on a decade of war"

Lately I've been speculating that one of the things on President Obama's agenda is ending the indefinite war that started after 9/11. This means more than just getting out of Afghanistan (as important as that is). It also means that, for those concerned about civil liberties, things like the AUMF and NDAA provisions will be ended as well.

This week, President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced their proposals for reducing our defense budget. Here are a couple of phrases from the President's introductory remarks to that announcement.

Now we’re turning the page on a decade of war...

...the tide of war is receding.

David Ignatius at the Washington Post noticed.

It was easy to miss the impact of Obama’s words: He was declaring that the era that began on Sept. 11, 2001, is over. Al-Qaeda’s top leader is dead, and most of its cadres are on the run; secret peace talks are under way with the Taliban. And across the Arab world, the United States is talking with Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist organizations that a few years ago might have been on terror lists. It’s a process that’s similar to the way Britain ended its long war with Irish terrorists, by engaging in negotiations with the IRA’s “political” wing.

(Emphasis mine)

Want to talk about a transformational president? I'd suggest that closing the book on the 9/11 era would do it! Other than giving our economy a chance to get back on an even keel, I can't think of anything more important for this country.

Are liberals anti-war? (updated)

This is the question that keeps coming to my mind as I hear people on the left attempt to convince us that Ron Paul has something to add to the debate.

I must admit that this is a question that I struggle with - as I assume many other liberals do as well. Those of us who have been steeped in the traditions of Gandhi and King know that non-violent resistance is anything but passive (as some folks would like to claim) and that there is a power to be grappled with in that type of response.

And yet, I'm not the only one who has had to question the idea of how non-violent resistance would have been effective in stopping someone like Hitler. Or an even more recent example, was military intervention the only way to stop the massacre of thousands in Libya last year?

These are difficult questions for many of us. And for those, like Niebuhr and President Obama, who've settled on the idea of being against "dumb wars" but not all wars, it is nothing short of insulting to claim that that makes them no different from Republicans who's first response is to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

The chances that any of these issues will be debated in an Obama/Romney presidential contest are exactly zero...As National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh put it yesterday: “In truth, Obama and Romney are far closer in mindset and philosophy than anyone is willing to acknowledge just now.”

If folks like Greenwald want to promote Ron Paul as the spokesperson for anti-war, then my question is "what does he propose as an alternative?" If its simply that we mind our own business, I find that nothing short of naive.

There is pretty good consensus in this country that invading Iraq was a stupid and despicable act. But should we have just ignored al Qaeda after 9/11? That's where most of us - including me - would suggest naivete. Perhaps we didn't need to invade an entire country, but stopping people who had killed thousands (not just in this country, but the Middle East, Europe and Africa as well) and wanted to continue to do so is something that required a response.

I would gladly welcome anyone to the conversation who wanted to talk about these issues in a way that both recognized the realities in the world and offered pragmatic solutions that minimized the killing of innocent people. Neither Greenwald nor Paul have done so.

The truth is that this is a question that has plagued liberals for generations. I don't expect it to go away anytime soon. For the time being, I suspect that it is the fact that we struggle with it - and will continue to do so - that sets us apart.

UPDATE: If you've gotten this far, please take a few minutes to read the comments. Some regular readers have added profoundly to the discussion.

Boehner is not the only one crying

A House divided.

A year to the day since Ohio’s John Boehner and 87 eager freshmen took Washington by storm, House Republicans are bruised from battle, irritated with each other and have lost trust in their leadership.

The president whose agenda they came to Washington to stop is vowing to spend the year scoring political points against Republicans now, and they don’t have much leverage against him.

Now, they’re trying to figure out how to revamp their agenda to find much needed political and policy victories in advance of the November election.

As I began reading the news this morning I couldn't help thinking about how things felt a year ago. Those relfections are what promoted my first post today about President Obama as legislator, negotiator and fighter.

Things did look pretty bleak in the aftermath of the 2010 election. I remember conversing on-line with liberals, blue dogs and conservatives...all of whom were having a field day blaming everything under the sun on President Obama (many of them, in all their cluelessness, still are).

But in the intervening 12 months, we've begun to see the effects of short-term thinking as a power grab. The Republicans pandered to their extremist base - which worked during a time of economic stress and a midterm election. They had their moment in the sun with that strategy and now its coming back to haunt them - both in Congress as well as the Presidential election.

Through all that, President Obama has remained his own cool self, continued to fight the good fight, and kept his eye on the North Star.

So, my job is to make sure that we have a North Star out there, what is helping people live out their lives; what is giving them more opportunity; what is growing the economy; what is making us more competitive. At any given juncture there are going to be times that my preferred option, what I am absolutely, positively sure is right, I can’t get done. And so then, my question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little bit this way or that way because I am keeping my eye on the long-term and the long fight. Not my day-to-day news cycle, but where am I going over the long-term.

That's the turtle telling us how slow and steady wins the race.

Who's fired up for 2012? Obama's base!

Boy oh boy, did Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling ever burst some bubbles today for the baggers of tea and fire! He just published the results of polling they've done to determine voter enthusiasm in different groups of the electorate. And guess what they found...

The group of voters most excited about voting this year, tied with the Tea Party, is African Americans. The thought that black voters are going to stay home and let the country's first black President lose for reelection because everything hasn't gone perfect is wishful thinking on the part of Republicans [Editors note: and firebaggers]. I will be surprised if there is any dropoff in turnout from African Americans this year.

The group tied for the third most excited out of the 18 we looked at here? Young voters. And when you take a deeper look at the folks under 30 who say they're 'very excited' about voting this fall, they support Obama by a 69-31 margin over a generic Republican opponent. Those folks are going to be out again this fall as well.

I'd guess that President Obama has gotten an assist here from things like the racism and homophobia coming from the Republican alternatives.

But for too long, as regular media and the blogosphere have fed off the mother's milk of conflict and disappointment, some of us have known that the majority of the President's base has stayed firm in their support. Thanks PPP for documenting what we've always suspected is true.