Category Archives: Politics

The Cold War

Mabon                                                                 Moon of the First Snow

The cold war. Hard to imagine explaining this to someone who didn’t experience it.

That Sputnik, for example, was not just or even primarily a first satellite in space, but instead a dire political statement of the advanced Soviet state.

That there was an iron curtain that separated eastern Europe from western Europe, a series of checkpoints and border controls that kept folks in as much as it kept folks out.

That the possible advance of communism became a convenient tool for paranoid patriots, just as muslim terror is today. That once the Soviet Union strode across the world as China has begun to do today.

That Kremlinology referred to the arcane practice of reading the intentions of the politburo from esoteric sources like economic reports, propaganda, and spy gathered intelligence. That the wave of spy movies and books had their roots in the post-WW II struggle between the advocates of communism and those of capitalism (not democracy).

That we put missile silos in the prairie and mountain states of Colorado, Arizona, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Montana seeding the earth with the most poisonous and powerful weapons ever imagined. That we did it to create a balance of terror which was seen as rational policy. And, even stranger, that it seemed to work.

Movies like Dr. Strangelove, Fail Safe, On the Beach gave creative expression to the unspeakable angst of a world living under the threat of annihilation, not from an exploding sun, not from climate catastrophe, but from decisions made by politicians. This angst, symbolized by the odd notion of fall-out shelters, is perhaps the most difficult aspect of the cold war to convey. It created an atmosphere in which children feared the future and adults worked with an atomic cloud not far from their consciousness.

A great deal has been done in popular literature and media  to explain Hitler and the nazis, the holocaust; but, there is little comparable work around the cold war. This is a mistake and one those of us who lived through it are responsible for rectifying. Why a mistake? Because at an emotional level it is so close in tone to the Bush/Osama Bin Laden created fear of terrorism. The cold war shows the ultimate futility and extraordinary cost of using fear as a primary definer for foreign policy. And, we are already far down the same road in our so-called war on terror.

Not Commendable, But True

Mabon                                                                    Moon of the First Snow

 

Not commendable, but true. I’m finding the pink ribbons, glowing reports of breast cancer survivors and the breathless joy of pink clad marathoners and professional athletes annoying. No, I don’t begrudge a single woman their successful treatment. Far from it. I’m glad.

It’s just that my own crew, prostate cancer survivors, have their cancer, get treatment, then get back to their lives. I don’t see blue ribbons (the color for prostate cancer. which makes some gender stereotypical sense) on cars, athlete’s sneakers, bedecking runners in the prostate cancer marathon. No smiling men surrounded by their buddies cheering them on.

This year the National Cancer Institute estimates there will be 231,480 new cases of breast cancer diagnosed, 14% of all new cancer cases. Over the same period it estimates 220,800 new cases of prostate cancer, 13.3% of all new cancer cases. Breast cancer will cause the death of 40,290 women and a small number of men, 6.8% of all cancer deaths. Prostate cancer will account for 27,450 deaths, 4.7% of all cancer deaths.

The numbers, then, are very similar though breast cancer does occur somewhat more often and causes more deaths.

 

Still, when I saw a woman celebrating her survival of stage 1 breast cancer being feted like a celebrity, a slow wave of rancor pulsed through me. I had stage 2. This is childish, I understand that. My cancer was worse than yours and you get all the fun. Geez.

A woman I know, when I confessed this emerging feeling, said, “Well, breasts are visible, more important to a woman’s sexual identity.” More important than sperm to a man’s? I thought this, but didn’t counter. The childishness part repressed there, thank god.

Would I want to have my face with a victorious I put prostate cancer in its place expression made available to public news services? Probably not. But I’m sure there are men who would be delighted.

Not quite sure what I want from this conversation, but I needed to put it out there.

 

 

 

Let Sad Make You Mad

Mabon                                                                            Elk Rut Moon

I got a disturbing call in the early 1980’s. Could I do a funeral for a young woman whose marriage I had performed on the West Bank in Minneapolis not two years before? Of course. How did she die?

Two boys playing in an alley had a rifle. It went off. The .22 bullet was so spent by the time it reached where she stood on the balcony of her apartment that it couldn’t penetrate the back of her coveralls. But it had enough power to stop her heart.

At the funeral we decided that the only way to make sense of her death was to push for gun control. And we did. We lobbied the Minneapolis city council, talked to Minnesota legislators. I don’t remember how long we kept at it, but in the end we failed. Just like gun control advocates all across this country.

I think it’s time three things happened: 1. The NRA gets put on the terrorist watch list as an enabler of domestic terrorism. 2. The second amendment gets recognized as the gun control amendment that it is. 3. Gunmakers, gun controlled lawmakers, local gun use advocates get the shame and the blame each time a shooting occurs, mass or otherwise.

Here are graphics that you might have seen elsewhere, but they’re worth seeing again. If you want to dig a little more into the numbers, go to this website: mass shooting tracker.

gun deaths vs terrorism deathsmass shootings graphic

Pope Meets Kim Davis. So What?

Mabon                                                                  Elk Rut Moon

So. The pope met with Kim Davis. And certain parties are saying it means he’s lost all the good will he garnered while here earlier. Do I like that he’s giving aid and moral cover to what I consider a bankrupt moral position? No. Does that negate his calls for action on climate change, caring for the poor, the prisoner? No.

Politics is not this or that, black or white. Politics demands, to use a phrase coined by G. Bush I, coalitions of the willing.  So, we disagree with the pope on same-sex marriage. So what? To engage in litmus test politics is to swing ourselves into the so-called values voters camp. That is, a politics in which a single issue can signal up or down support of a person or a policy.

I’m personally delighted with the pope’s underscoring of climate change urgency. Climate change is one thing, gay rights another. Unless you haven’t followed Roman Catholic doctrine, he’s following the orthodox line when he supports those who stand against gay rights and gay marriage. We don’t need him or the Catholic church on gay rights. Having him and the larger Catholic church pushing for change on the climate front? Good news. We can use the help.

 

Labor Unions

Lughnasa                                                                    Labor Day Moon

When a worker with a high school education, maybe less, gets hired by an international corporation, the imbalance of power is obvious. It may be less obvious, but no less true if that new employee is a college graduate. What is the imbalance of power? It is the individual against the collected wealth and authority structure of corporate America.

When a Procter & Gamble or Ford or General Electric decides to take action against an individual unless that individual has a union on their side, they will not get a fair hearing. Even if corporate structures were not captive to greed and oligarchic interests, which they are, the imbalance of power would still exist. With greed and class placed on the fulcrum as well, an individual is powerless.

When an individual in the employee of a large corporation wants a raise, better health benefits, improved vacation leave, their opportunity to win the conversation comes at the bargaining table, negotiating from collective power rather than depending on the kindness of middle management.

Labor Day celebrates both workers and their unions. As a child, the UAW (United Auto Workers) made a huge impression on me. The parents of my friends were members of the UAW. More than once I saw them, through their union, fight General Motors, Chrysler, Ford and win. Many, perhaps most, of these parents were recent immigrants from the hills of Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky. Most had less than a high school education, but they earned middle class wages with good health care, retirement packages, vacation and sick leave. I saw first hand the benefits of union membership.

Decades later I’m still convinced of the power and necessity of unions. Support them, if you can. Goodwill is not enough.

It Can Happen Again

Lughnasa                                                             Labor Day Moon

And now, news that Donald Trump has staying power. Oh, my. A few days back I wrote about the possibility of a four-party presidential election with Trump on the right fringe and Sanders on the left fringe. If this should happen, it raises the possibility of a Jesse Ventura outcome on a national level, a minority candidate sliding into office. I’m not sure how plausible such an outcome is, but the thought of Jesse the Mouth being followed by Donald the Hair gives me shivers.

Presidential elections, the silly season, have extended themselves back in time. We’re still over a year from the election and yet news of candidates and candidacies are everywhere. There is no incumbent. The first viable woman candidate is making her case, trying to make doubled history by following the first black president. Bernie Sanders has quite literally come out of left field, giving voice to many of us who’ve felt disenfranchised by the center right politics of the Reagan era. And Trump. The mean side of the American dream, only white dreamers need apply.

Politics since the mid-1970’s have lurched from outright criminal to benign neglect, from the right’s right wing to the horrific posturing of the neocons. Obama has been better, Obamacare a good start on national health care, but his use of drones, failure to close Gitmo and his defense of the industrial/governmental security state have made his years since then look status quo.

There was this bright moment, from about 1965 to 1975, when politics had the will of the people behind it, pushing, keeping up pressure, not letting old fissures of race, gender, militarism, class go unchallenged. It was an anomaly, I see that now, but it was my youth and my young adulthood, so it became what I hoped for, what I continue to hope for. Politics enacted at the grassroots level. Politics done for the needs of the many, not the interests of the few. Politics that listen to the voiceless: the tree, the river, the mountain, the land, the elk, the pika, the wolf.

Yes, the 60’s were an anomaly, but they don’t have to be. That spirit can come back, the realization that we are, all of us, responsible for each other and that a primary executor of that responsibility is government at all levels. That spirit can lift us out of the corporate state and back into a citizen state. It has happened before and can happen again.

Hear the Other

Lughnasa                                                            Labor Day Moon

Read an article today that wondered if we might be coming to a four party moment in American political history. The far right tea party and their running dogs, what’s left of the Republican party that’s center-right, the center-left politics of Hillary and mainstream democrats and the leftist politics of Bernie Sanders and his followers. This could be true and may well reflect the deepening among political factions.

In itself I find nothing amazing about this. Two party politics has produced two centrist groups both organized around protecting corporate America. Each has slightly different inflections, pro-defense spending on the right and pro-social programs like Social Security and Medicare on the left, but in their design to retain status quo economics both look and act much the same. Neither will either one get too far into the so-called values voter mess, preferring to avoid such topics as gay marriage, abortion, fringe positions on patriotism and the widening inequities in our economy. In these matters they have taken safe positions, neither too for nor too against, and hope they’re cover won’t be blown.

What I find troubling here is that we may be coming to a point where factions no longer speak to or with one another, but past one another. Recall how many times you’ve seen an article or heard a remark about an opposing point of view from your own and dismissed it. Not thoughtfully analyzed it, but dismissed it altogether. If I see a remark about the sanctity of the family, Benghazi or Muhammad Obama, my mind glazes over with thin ice and I go on to something else.

And here’s where I want to say a good word for Facebook. Many of my high school classmates, perhaps some of yours, have grown into a partisan place among one of the four factions. I know I have. Family members, too, and some odd folks that get inserted along the way who knows how also populate other factions than my own. In this way I see posts about leaving the country if you burn the flag, the glories of Donald Trump, the essential fact of Hillary’s candidacy, even the occasional call for fiscal responsibility.

My first, second and third reaction to these posts was OMG. What are these people thinking? Or, are they thinking? In other words I was dismissive. That thin ice covered my attention and I slid on to different material.

More recently though I’ve had another take on it all. I have known Larry Cummings, Jim Oliver, Mike Thomas, Connie Cummins since they were kids. When they and others post things that makes the ice begin to crystallize over my attention, I have to wonder, can I dismiss persons I know so well? Granted we’ve grown into adults with different lifeways and probably started with different assumptions based on our families of origin, but are they no longer to be heard?

Struggling with this, knowing I still disagreed with what they believe, I still cared about them, still found their lives and their journeys interesting, worth keeping up on. I could have this realization because I knew each of them from elementary school, some even before that. So, I began to wonder, are the tea party folks whom I don’t know really any different from Larry, Jim, Connie and Mike? Of course not.

What I’m getting at here is that in spite of our differences in political orientation, we are still citizens of the same country, folks on the same journey in this life, part of the broader human family. I may disagree with them, wonder how anyone could buy that point of view, but they are still folks I know and want to continue to know. Might be I’m trying for the political equivalent of Martin Luther, something like disagree with the belief, but love the believer.

In doing that I imagine a world where not only can we respect our differences, but seek hard for our common ground. Knowing these folks, I’m sure family is important to them and so are the communities in which they now find themselves living. Me, too. Perhaps that’s where we can start to hunt for coalition building. Or, another example, I’m sure these folks want clean lakes in which to fish and healthy forests in which to hunt. Good schools for their children and economic opportunities for them as they grow. They probably want a financially and medically secure old age for themselves, too. We need to talk to each other, walk on each other’s thin ice until one of us breaks through.

Lughnasa                                                                     Recovery Moon

“Trump’s base is more the people who used to have season tickets to the Roman Colosseum,” Mr. McQuaid wrote. “Not sure that they vote in great numbers, but they like blood sport.” NYT article, “Handwringing in GOP…”

 

Obama as Ex-President

Summer                                                               Recovery Moon

What will Obama be like as an ex-President? We have so many right now that various modes are very visible: the George’s Bush, Carter and Clinton. The Bushes seem to emphasize the retirement model with George I sky-diving and George II painting, cutting brush. Clinton has maintained a high-public profile with his speaking, foundation and, of course, Hillary’s career, too. Jimmy Carter is maybe the most interesting model since he has used his post-Presidential years to become a trusted international interlocutor, especially around the issues of free elections.

These are, of course, fragmentary observations, based on one man’s perception, so they are not in any way definitive. Rather, they speak to a filtered and publicly formed image. Still, they seem instructive to me.

My guess is that Obama will become even more important as an ex-President than any of the others living now, perhaps more important than any ex-President ever. Why? When he is no longer President of all the people, he can begin to illuminate racism and its structural intricacies. Who better to know them than a black man who has lived at the peak of institutionalized power?

Further, since he is young and since his Presidential term will end as the demographics of the United States continue to press toward a more and more heterogeneous citizenry, his influence can only grow. Too, the repetitive instances of police violence toward black folk, made more visible now by portable cameras in cellphones and the immediacy of internet distribution, seem to have created a teachable moment for the U.S. as a whole. Part of my guess about Obama as ex-President was spurred by his oratory at the funeral of Clementa Pickney in Charleston. You can feel him becoming less inhibited by his office.

My hope is that he and his advisers can shape a post-Presidential life for him that will finally put the question of racial privilege, white racism, on the docket of our nation and keep it there until healing on both parts can begin.

This is not just an American problem, racism is a subset of ethnocentrism, which is a primary driver in conflicts and wars around the world: Tutus and Hutsis in Rawanda, Israelis and Palestinians, Sunnis and Shiites, ISIS and Christians, anti-semitism in Russia, Germany, France, apartheid in South Africa, Tibet and the Uighurs in China, India and Pakistan, the response to refugees in Turkey, Italy, Nigeria. Yes, of course, economics matter and so do politics, but look at each of these situations and try to extract the ethnocentric component from the economic, the political. The three intertwine and co-determine.

Obama could have an important role to play in addressing this global and historic flaw in human relations. He can’t solve it, but he can raise its visibility and keep it on the global agenda for a long time to come. May it be so.

Bless Them All

Summer                                                           Recovery Moon

I’d not even begun to read Ta-Nehisi Coates‘ new book, Between the World and Me, when I came across Cornel West‘s (picture) defense of his review of the book. I met Cornel at a Liberation Theology conference in Detroit. This was the late 70’s when all things seemed possible if we could just get organized. He was a young academic star on the rise.

Now he’s professor emeritus from Princeton in Philosophy and still teaching at Union Theological Seminary in New York. West’s critique of Coates’ work lies in Coates’ unwillingness to connect his observations to the struggle for black liberation. West is an unreconstructed black and 1960’s activist who sees all things through the prism of praxis, saying must be connected to doing. Me, too, but he’s been far more faithful to the dream.

What interested me even more than Cornel’s critique of Coates was his critique of Obama as the first black president. He used it too as an example of a place Coates was not willing to go with his analysis. I don’t recall all of it but he called Obama out on drones, the closing(non) of Gitmo, the national surveillance state, and his support of the occupation of Palestine.

Some of us follow our thought where it goes and in so doing allow our actions to be guided by the most fiery, the most pure of our ideas. West is such a man. So was King and Malcolm X. I admire all 3. They stand as bright sentinels on the margins of our culture, illuminating the path of that broad arc toward justice. Often such people can seem irrelevant, too willing to forego gains for the sake of a further dream. And that’s a fair argument, but it discounts the larger ecology of the work.

We need pathfinders, ones who can see the way forward and cast light upon it. Others can make the day-to-day compromises that actually move society forward. Without our Wests and Kings and Malcolms, our Freidans and Steinhems and Stantons, the path ahead would remain hidden, tailing off in the dark edges of the future. Bless them all.