Essentially Contested America

The Supreme Court, according to Andy Borowitz, has reversed the Motion Picture Academy’s Award to Al Gore for the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” Read this howl for yourself.

Posted: 1:20 PM

Readers, ECA is experiencing technical difficulties resulting in a mis-feed in the right-hand column of the web log. Hopefully, it will not interfere with posting. With a little luck, the problem will be corrected post haste. I apologize for any inconvenience. Thanks for your patience. RJL

Should Al Gore run for president in 2008? If he does, should progressives support him? The only way to answer this question is to delineate what progressives want, or should want, in a 2008 presidential candidate. If they want a candidate that will run against: rapacious corporations, a health care system that is unconcerned with the poor, an electoral system that is badly broken, racism and its continued effects, a conservative legal system–especially the federal courts–that hold out little or no justice for ordinary Americans, then Al Gore should not be their candidate. If, however, progressives want to address the single most compelling issue of our times, the continuing fiasco of Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq–perpetuated, in part, by their support of Ralph Nader in 2000–then perhaps they should pause. If progressives are intent on addressing the persisting danger of an explosive Middle East which will continue to cause the deaths of thousands of innocent people, affect economic and social issues back home, and hasten America’s slide in to ignominy throughout the world, then they should give Gore a serious look. Indeed, how about a Gore-Obama ticket? Who could the Republicans nominate to compete?

One last note, Mr. Nader’s continual inability to take some of the responsibility for Mr. Gore’s 2000 presidential loss, makes him seem as obdurate as the present occupant of the White House. The mantra–”the lesser of two evils is still evil” completely distorts the fact that the lesser of two evils sometimes prevents diabolical disaster. Sure, the Socialist Workers Party, as Mr. Nader is quick to point out, affected the 2000 election. If the members of the Party voted for Gore instead of their socialist leader, Gore would have won Florida. But there was never any chance of that happening. And yes, Mr. Gore’s campaign left much to be desired. Indeed, there are multiple sources of the 2000 defeat, not to say anything more about the Supreme Court’s dastardly intrusion into a presidential election. [1] Yet, Mr. Nader’s campaign drew sufficient numbers of Democrats–citizens who would have voted for Gore had Mr. Nader withdrawn from the race or had never entered it–to help place just the right number of electoral votes in Mr. Bush’s column. Had that not have occurred, we would not now be bogged down in Iraq. Although Mr. Gore would have certainly reacted to 911 by lobbing some missiles into Afghanistan or worse, he would never have invaded Iraq. No sane person would. If Mr. Nader cannot assume a modicum of responsibility–just a modicum–for this disaster, then the sharp, moral distinction his followers portray between Mr. Nader and Mr. Bush becomes blurred. Mr. Nader, and his devoted followers, can offer as many creative rationalizations as they please, but creative rationalizations will not mitigate the awful contribution they and Mr. Nader made in the election of 2000 to the future course of world history.
_______________________________
[1] Justice Scalia now thinks the judicially-ordered Florida recount violated the Equal Protection Clause. Ironically, stopping the recount and denying those clearly legitimate votes to be counted creates no equal protection problem in the good Justice’s mind. Nor is he bothered by the unprecedented action of the Supreme Court interfering with a presidential election in a razor thin 5-4 decision to halt a process that might have concluded with the people’s choice as President. Denial and rationalization abound.

Yesterday, it was reported that the Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously to express “profound regret” for the State’s role in slavery. The resolution states, in part, that government-licensed slavery “ranks as the most horrendous of all depredations of human rights and violations of our founding ideals in our nation’s history, and the abolition of slavery was followed by systematic discrimination, enforced segregation, and other insidious institutions and practices toward Americans of African descent that were rooted in racism, racial bias, and racial misunderstanding.” The Assembly, in what seemed an after-thought, also “expressed regret for the exploitation of Native Americans.”

Why should the Virginia legislature apologize for slavery or for any other ancient, barbaric practice? No living Virginian had anything to do with these inhumane practices, so why should their representatives apologize in their name? Moral culpability, a necessary condition of regret and remorse, is completely absent in this case. Moreover, at one time or another, many racial, religious, and ethnic groups have been treated poorly. If apology is appropriate in the case of slavery, why not apologize to these groups as well. (Indeed, why not express profound regret, not merely “regret” for exploiting Native Americans not merely “regret”?) Moreover, such apologies are worse than misguided; they are in essence a charade. What possible good can such symbolic behavior have now? No slave will be freed as a result of such pious self-righteousness. No Native American will be returned to his or her land.

These are serious questions and they deserve serious answers. First, arguably, slavery was the most barbaric of all the inhumane American practices with the exploitation of Native Americans running a close second. Not only did the slave traders abduct Africans from their homes but by the force of lawlaw, they robbed them of their culture, language, and even their right to maintain families. Jews, Irish, Germans, Italians were never treated this way although some were treated badly indeed. Not even the Chinese or the Japanese were treated as badly as slaves, though both were treated terribly by both government and private actors. Second, contemporary Virginians–all Americans–have benefited from the slave labor forced upon Africans by their ancestors. Third, if America is a trans-temporal community and if members of the community must be responsible for the community’s misdeeds, then we all must apologize for slavery. Ironically, we identify with Americans who lived centuries ago when it costs us nothing and when the Americans performed great deeds, but when it comes to compensating for the misdeeds of these same Americans somehow the identity fails. Selective identification is incoherent. Either we identify with our ancestors for their triumphs and their disasters or we identify with neither.

Let’s amplify the preceding point. We often hear people say “My ancestors weren’t even in this country during slavery. Therefore, I bear no responsibility for it.” Is actual presence in a particular geographical space required for identifying with what goes on in that space. Or do we virtually exist in that space, so to say, once we adopt it as our own? Consider this example. In 1950, a young man emigrates from Kenya to the United States. He grows up, reveling in being an American, and wants to express his devotion to the United States by joining the Marine Corp. Once a member of this elite fighting force, he takes special pride in stories, photos, and the reality of the marines victory at Iwo Jima, especially the raising of the stars and stripes on Mt. Suribachi.

Is this possible? Do moral emotions operate in this fashion? Can he have pride in something he took no part in? Does the fact that he wasn’t even in this country in 1944 or ever on Iwo Jima disqualify him from being proud of what the marines did on that terrible island? Does the fact that his ancestors lived their entire lives in Kenya disqualify him? Of course not. We take pride in the accomplishment of actors even when they performed their feats before we were born. Indeed, I’m proud of my grandparents for successfully fleeing from Russia though though it took place before I was born and in a country I’ve never visited. Our Kenyan friend, therefore, can appreciate, honor, and identify with the marines raising the stars and stripes on Iwo Jima just as if he had actually been there. If pride is possible in events that occurred before one was born, then regret is also possible, even if one’s ancestors weren’t in the geographical space in question. Hence, we should apologize for our community’s wrongdoing in the past just as we can take pride in the community’s triumphs. That’s why the Virginia legislators were morally justified–even required–to apologize for slavery. And that’s why we should emulate their accomplishment.

Robert Mugabe, the one-time Marxist leader of Zimbabwe must be commended for his anti-colonial struggle. When he came to power in 1980, he was all about hope, cooperation, and understanding. Since then he’s betrayed his own vision. Now he should be ashamed of himself. Mr. Mugabe has, following his fellow Marxist, Fidel Castro, become an authoritarian dictator brutally reigning over a poverty-stricken people. Neither tyrant possesses the wisdom to understand that those who lead revolutions to victory can never be the ones to complete the revolution; indeed, authentic revolutions are never completed. Now in honor of his eighty-third birthday, 300,000 dollars will be spent for Mr. Mugabe’s birthday party while ordinary Zimbabweans starve.

Mugabe and Castro should have learned a stunning lesson from none other than George Washington. At the end of the Revolutionary War, President Washington could have become King, certainly President-for-Life. But instead he returned his commission to the Continental Congress and retired to private life until his countryman persuaded him to preside over the Constitutional Convention. Whenever anyone claims no revolutionary leader ever gave up power voluntarily, you should reply. “That’s false. George Washington did.” Though not the only revolutionary leader to do so–Cincinnatus preceded him and Daniel Ortega followed, both in two very different worlds–President Washington’s example should be the guiding light of republican revolutionaries everywhere. Mr. Mugabe’s inability to relinquish power democratically and his brutal reign over the course of almost three decades should permanently condemn him in the annals of civilized societies. Now, his gratuitous, immoral extravagance clearly reminds us of the disaster Mr. Mugabe has become.

There’s speculation, or perhaps nothing more than conjecture, that Iran and Syria might be planning a war with Israel. If so, the duo might be unwisely gambling that their combined military strength is finally a match for Israel. Do they really believe they can win a war with Israel? What might account for their overconfidence? Syria has been longing to retake the Golan Heights from Israel ever since Israel overran the Heights. The Heights is a continual reminder of Israel’s drubbing of Syria in the 1967 war. Now with Iran assuming Persian domination, or at least virtual domination, of the Arab Middle East, the Syrians might believe that an alliance between the two nations can achieve victory over Syria’s nemesis, Israel.

If these reports are credible, what accounts for Iran’s hubris in acting out its threats against Israel? The simple truth is: George W. Bush. Without the power vacuum Mr. Bush created in Iraq, Iran could never believe–even in Mr. Ahmadinejad’s warped mind–that it could survive a war with Israel. The demonic forces Mr. Bush has unleashed in the region will continue to nurture terrorists and destroy the lives–and perhaps much of the civilization of this region–for decades, if not permanently. Mr. Bush’s mantra–that he doesn’t know whether the surge will succeed but he does know withdrawal will be disastrous–is ironic because the damage Mr. Bush’s war has already caused can in no way be rectified by an increase of twenty thousand extended troops. Admittedly, withdrawing from Iraq now will tempt the Syrians to back the Sunnis and the Turks to back the Kurds and the Iranians obviously to back the Shiites, if the present civil war spreads. But these alliances are already causing havoc in the area. This is precisely why a military solution is impossible because even if it were to succeed temporarily–against all odds–the enmity between the warring factions will continue to control political, economic, and social reality in the area for decades. Without a political settlement–through diplomacy–the Middle East will be a trouble spot in perpetuity.

Consequently, the choice is not to continue this failed policy or to completely withdraw now. There’s an abundance of third ways between these stark alternatives. The failed “reasoning” behind Bush’s war is precisely his inability to engage in analytic thinking about complex issues. Instead. Mr. Bush’s puerile approach attacks issues as they might be portrayed in comic books. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush’s character is even more duplicitous and sinister. Word also has it that the Bush administration goaded Israel into invading Lebanon in order to achieve victory over Hezbollah-Iran-Syrian connection. Additionally, there’s talk that Mr.Bush and Prime Minister Blair carried out “a war before the war” against Iraq prior to the invasion.

What should be kept in mind, however, is that calamity of Mr. Bush’s
regime was clearly predictable. In 2000, we already knew the limits of Mr. Bush’s capacity to understand the world. (Jesus Christ was his favorite “political philosopher.”) We knew his failed attempts in business. We knew the sorts of judges he would appoint to the bench. And we knew he knew nothing, and cared less, about international relations. The disaster known as “George W. Bush” was clearly predictable. Yet, the ruling elites lifted him into office anyway.

The United Nations asked Canada whether “it can ensure that it will avoid repeating the kind of mistakes that led the United States to deport Maher Arar to Damascus, where he was tortured for nearly a year.” As ECA has said in earlier posts here and here, the Arar affair is a contrast of two wrongdoers–Canada and the United States–where the former admits its culpability and attempts to compensate and repent, while the latter admits nothing and continues to persecute Mr. Arar. This disgraceful treatment of a Canadian national is nothing less than moral turpitude on the part of the United States’ government.

The administration’s conduct is matched only by the failure of the American press to adequately monitor and report the administration’s role in the Arar affair. What prevents the American media from covering a story where the human rights of a Canadian citizen are so flagrantly violated? Is is governmental pressure? Or is it a calculated judgment that the American public is indifferent to what trials and tribulations Canadian citizens, especially those with Syrian ancestry, experience at the hands of the United States.

Americans must stand up to their government’s abuse of Mr. Arar by keeping his name on an American terrorist watch list and refusing him permission to enter the United States. What the administration is doing is done in our name and we must embrace it or petition the government to cease and desist.

Any progressive, indeed any dedicated American, should watch the video “An Unreasonable Man,” a chronicle of the life and battles of Ralph Nader. One intriguing feature in this film is the examination of the split in the American left over Nader’s role in the 2000 election. Nader’s detractors–most notably, Todd Gitlin and Eric Alterman–argue that Nader should not have run at all or, if he did run, he should have withdrawn from the presidential campaign at the end. His supporters argue that basing an election strategy on “the lesser of two evils” still results in evil, and that history and rationality augur against running for president–seeking the assistance of millions of people–only to at the end say “We’ve made our point. Vote for Gore.”

ECA has posted on this before and so I will not reiterate the argument in that post. At this time, I want to point out a paradox–familiar to progressives–that any progressive movement faces in a society based on the rule of corporate law. If you’re a progressive and want to tame corporations you must get elected to office, but in order to get elected to office you must raise vast sums of money. Where does one turn to raise such resources? Corporate America or those controlled by corporate America. Absent serious campaign finance laws, those are the only choices. Keep true to yourself and lose, or win by capitulating to interests your conscience demands you challenge. Are there any realistic alternatives?

Dear Copernicus:

Happy Birthday Copernicus! Your contribution to civilization has been monumental. You’ve taught us that the Earth is not at the center of the solar system. That discovery has permanently altered human history as well as human consciousness. Your Copernican Revolution marks the first great step in humankind’s journey toward capturing the moral virtue of humility. Unfortunately, it did not complete the task. We also need a revolution in the thinking of America’s ruling elites away from the arrogance that the United States is the moral, political, and cultural center of the world. For that we need a modern day American Copernican leader. Does such a leader exist? It doesn’t seem so.

But we can hope for an American Copernican who will reveal to us how insidious American arrogance can be. Such a leader will maintain a strong and powerful United States while at the same time honoring and respecting other cultures and other peoples. This American Copernican will be idealistic but supremely self-critical. He or she will be ever mindful of the Nietzchean admonition that “[c]onvictions are more dangerous than lies” and that tolerance and respect is essential when engaging in arguments about essentially contested controversies. The American Copernican will keep America strong, but truly understand the art of negotiation. And, above all, the American Copernican will understand that refusal to talk to one’s enemy reveals only cowardice.

But more than any other value, the American Copernican will try to convince the American people that obduracy and inflexibility in moral suasion is itself a moral fault. The American Copernican leader will exemplify a happily paradoxical value, namely, that the only real leadership comes from We-the-People and the other peoples of the world. And the American Copernican will appreciate and exemplify Kierkegaard’s insight, “that the real task is in fact to be objective towards oneself and subjective towards all others.” Thank you Copernicus for setting an example for Americans to follow.

One question Americans rarely ask themselves is whether they owe anything to their compatriots. And when they do, their answers are predictably egoistic. This societally inculcated indifference–please don’t blame it on anything as grand as “human nature”–to the suffering, needs, and aspirations of others flies in the face of most mainstream American religions. We must then conclude that, in the spiritual lives of most Americans, there exists a professed concern for all people everywhere; yet in their personal, social, and political lives a studied narcissism festers.

This fracture in the American soul is captured by the observation that Americans adore Christ on Sundays, but revel in Herbert Spencer, the social Darwinist, for the rest of the week. The very same clerics

who profess “love thy neighbor” ignore the crushing poverty of millions of suffering Americans. Apparently, for them, religion is one thing, but raising taxes to help the poor, the disabled, and the sick quite another. In this distinctly American view, charity belongs in the so-called “private sector,” a term which itself prejudices the question in favor of greed. For these devout citizens, seeking eternal salvation from a loving God trumps effective attempts at sparing their fellows from misery now. My condemnation of this insidious, entrenched solipsism is an ancient complaint and if any antidote is possible, no better one exists than the eternal value expressed in the prescient words of John Donne:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

John Donne, “Meditation XVII” of Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions (1624).

This post is dedicated to my father, Herbert Leslie Lipkin, who will celebrate his 93rd birthday in June.