Heart and Imagination

"I am certain of nothing but the holiness of the Heart's affections and the truth of the Imagination." -- John Keats

Is this what you voted for America?

We know that in poll after poll, Americans say that their top priority for our government to work on is creating jobs.

The Republicans gained a majority in the House in the last election and are now beginning to work on their priorities. What are we seeing so far?

1. A PR stunt of a vote to repeal health care reform - something they knew would never actually happen, but made a lot of noise.

2. A lot of talk about the deficit and how they are going to push for cuts in spending. Two problems with this: first of all, they can't agree on where to cut and secondly, they seem to be trying to make the case that it was government spending that created our financial crisis. Or at least that reducing spending will solve it. The truth is that - in some ways - the increase in the deficit is a result of the crisis, not the cause. Spending is down and so tax receipts are down. This is basic econ. And reducing government spending even further will only mean fewer jobs and less spending by those who loose them. Government debt is only a problem when it drives up interest rates. That's not happening now. It will certainly happen in the future if we don't make some changes. But the current issue is jobs...not inflation or interest rates.

3. An attempt to re-define rape and restrict access to abortions.

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.

As odious as this last one is, I'll leave commentary on that one to another day. The point is...where's the plan on how to address the number one issue affecting Americans and our economy?

Nowhere.

Photos of courage

From GreenQuran.

Obama's speech in Cairo

As we watch events unfold in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries, I thought it would be helpful to go back and look at President Obama's speech in Cairo from June 2009.



He sets the stage for how to approach the divisions between the Muslim world and the West this way:

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.

This signals a complete break with the neo-conservative idea of Pax Americana and the Bush administration's proclivity to think that the United States could dictate democracy in other countries from the barrel of a gun.

And then he goes on to discuss particular issues, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine, and Iran. At that point, he addresses the issue of democracy - especially pertinent to what is happening in the Middle East today.

I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

He goes on to talk about religious freedom, women's rights, and economic development.

Then he ends with this:

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

As we watch Obama react to the changes and tensions that are being expressed in the Middle East, we can be confident that these are the guiding principles and ideals that form the foundation of his response.

Self Portrait by David Whyte

It doesn't interest me if there is one God
Or many gods.
I want to know if you belong -- or feel abandoned;
If you know despair
Or can see it in others.
I want to know
If you are prepared to live in the world
With its harsh need to change you;
If you can look back with firm eyes
Saying "this is where I stand."
I want to know if you know how to melt
Into that fierce heat of living
Falling toward the center of your longing.
I want to know if you are willing
To live day by day
With the consequence of love
And the bitter unwanted passion
Of your sure defeat.
I have been told
In that fierce embrace
Even the gods
Speak of God.

The other nine-year-old victim in Pima County, AZ

A couple of weeks ago we all grieved the loss of Christina Taylor Green at the hands of senseless violence. But not many of us have heard the story of Brisenia Flores. She too was murdered in an act of senseless violence at the age of 9 in Pima County, AZ. We don't have many endearing stories about her life because the little notice her death has gotten has been about that awful day it happened. Here's some of that story- not for the faint of heart:

"Early on the morning of May 30, 2009, Raul Flores heard a knock at the door of his Arivaca, Arizona, home. When he opened it, he found a man and a woman claiming to be law-enforcement officers in search of fugitives. Minutes later, the man shot Flores to death. Then, authorities say, he pumped three bullets into Flores’ wife, Gina Gonzalez, who survived but played dead. “Why did you shoot my mom?” Gonzalez’s 9-year-old daughter, Brisenia Flores, asked the gunman, according to prosecutors. Those were her last words. The man put a gun to her head, fired off two rounds, and killed her."

The trials for the 3 people that have been arrested for this murder started last week with the alleged ring-leader Shawna Forde.

The portrait of Forde that has emerged is one of a self-imagined border security crusader who would finance her anti-immigrant activities with violent robberies. Forde had a habit of ending her emails with the sign off, “Lock and Load” and had close ties with tea party groups. She was involved with the Minutemen American Defense—her supporters claim she was once a Minuteman National Director—a loose affiliation of anti-immigration border activists who took to policing the border on their own with guns and surveillance equipment. Forde has also had ties with the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform. These groups have all been labeled hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. FAIR has distanced itself from Forde, and the Minutemen have disavowed one of their most enthusiastic members.

If the trial proves that this woman financed her hate-group by robberies that ended in killing any possible witness, including a 9-year old girl, its hard to imagine a more depraved human being. And I'll leave it to you to decide if there is reason here to call out the hate-mongering of the anti-immigrant forces at work in Arizona. Nuff said...

The SOTU and the Obama Method

Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He's a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change.

- Michelle Obama, 2005

One of the things Michelle is implying here is the question of whether or not politics is capable of making change. I know that is something I grew cynical about not too long ago. There are many theories about how and why our system of democracy seems to be failing us - especially those on the left. But the methods we could use to change that have proven fairly inadequate over the last couple of decades.

In an article written in December 2007 about the primaries, Mark Schmitt identified three methods of change and assigned each to one of the leading presidential candidates on the Democratic side.

Hillary Clinton's stump speech is built around the speechwriter's rule of three, applied to theories of change: one candidate believes you achieve change by "demanding" it, another thinks you "hope for it," while she alone knows that you have to "work for it."

That's accurate as a rendering of the candidates' language: Her message of experience and hard work, Obama's language of hope and common purpose, Edwards' insistence that those with power will never give it up willingly.

He goes on to talk about the benefits and limits of Clinton's belief in "work for it" and Edward's commitment to "demand it." And while Edwards later demonstrated deeper problems as a candidate than his method for change, you can see why so many of the frustrati were initially attracted to him with their belief that "yelling louder" was the answer.

Those two methods have been what many believed are the sum total of how you gain power in politics - challenge the opposition strongly enough to "defeat" them or work at it harder than you think they will be willing to. The trouble is, too many times we learned that rather than respond to these challenges by acknowledging defeat or giving up, our opponents have simply rebounded by being stronger and more determined. They're not backing down.

As many have done, its clear now that Clinton - in describing Obama's methods for change - underestimated him by saying he simply "hoped for it." We continue to hear this refrain from his critics on the left who call him "naive" or "spineless."

But Schmitt digs a little deeper and explains it this way:

The reason the conservative power structure has been so dangerous, and is especially dangerous in opposition, is that it can operate almost entirely on bad faith. It thrives on protest, complaint, fear: higher taxes, you won't be able to choose your doctor, liberals coddle terrorists, etc. One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows. And that's not a tactic of bipartisan Washington idealists -- it's a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers, who are acutely aware of power and conflict.

Jonathan Chait calls this The Obama Method and uses a foreign policy situation as an example.

Consider how Obama explained his approach toward Iran during a recent interview with Newsweek:

Now, will it work? We don't know. And I assure you, I'm not naive about the difficulties of a process like this. If it doesn't work, the fact that we have tried will strengthen our position in mobilizing the international community, and Iran will have isolated itself, as opposed to a perception that it seeks to advance that somehow it's being victimized by a U.S. government that doesn't respect Iran's sovereignty.

This is a perfect summation of Obama's strategy. It does not presuppose that his adversaries are people of goodwill who can be reasoned with. Rather, it assumes that, by demonstrating his own goodwill and interest in accord, Obama can win over a portion of his adversaries' constituents as well as third parties. Obama thinks he can move moderate Muslim opinion, pressure bad actors like Iran to negotiate, and, if Iran fails to comply, encourage other countries to isolate it. The strategy works whether or not Iran makes a reasonable agreement.

As Chait points out - Obama's method sets up the possibility for a win either way. He knows its unlikely his opponent will negotiate in good faith, but he'll give them a chance. And if they don't take it, they're marginalized and his position is stronger in the court of public opinion for having made the effort. In other words, he's playing for the audience, not the actors.

And this week, Chait saw Obama returning to that method in his SOTU.

Obama's various moves over the last few weeks, including the speech, are a return to the political method that launched his career. I wrote a column in 2009 about the Obama method. It involves establishing your reasonableness by taking bad-faith objections at face value and creating a mechanism to work through them...

Obama is positioning himself for a clash with Republicans by attempting to delineate their objections and declare his willingness to meet him halfway. When their positions inevitably prove more extreme -- when they're looking not to reduce high statutory corporate tax rates or excessive regulation but to open new loopholes and gut essential consumer protections -- then he has the high ground to oppose them.

Obama actually ended his speech with his most powerful expression of this method. In part it worked because Rep. Boehner was sitting right behind him at the time with VP Biden. But the nexus of Republican opposition will likely shift from the Senate to the House this session with their majority in that body. Boehner, like it or not, takes on the mantle of leadership in opposition.

We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything is possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.

That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight. That dream is why a working-class kid from Scranton can sit behind me. That dream is why someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father’s Cincinnati bar can preside as Speaker of the House in the greatest nation on Earth.

He took the power of a shared American dream right to the person who is going to be the face of the opposition - and in a very personal way. Pettiness and incivility in opposition will only look small in comparison. Its unlikely Boehner will change his tactics in any way as a result - and Obama knows that. What's more likely is that Obama will gain audience approval for making the move and Boehner will appear less credible. In other words, when in comes to the power of public opinion, Obama first offers to share it with Boehner. But if Boehner rejects the offer...Obama owns it.

Chait calls this "conciliatory language as ruthless strategy." And down the drain goes the idea that Obama is naive.