I had no sooner finished my last post, Coffee Party, part II, when I was meandering about the web (I never do "surf" it) and landed on a YouTube video of Michele Bachmann, tea partier extraordinaire, explaining that she became a Republican after reading Gore Vidal's novel Burr. Up until that point, she had been a Democrat, and her first trip to Washington, she said, was to attend Jimmy Carter's inaugural ball.
Who knew?
All that changed as she read Burr, which Wikipedia describes a "a [1973] historical novel challenging the traditional iconography of United States history via narrative and a fictional memoir of Aaron Burr."
According to Bachmann, she was offended that Burr "ridiculed the Founding Fathers."
This aligns exactly with what I discussed in the last blog: Tea Partiers have a vision that wants to pull the good from American history, and they are repelled by the seemingly endless negativity progressives appear to display toward that history, a negativity I believe most progressives understand as an attempt to articulate what the American experience was like to oppressed classes. But as I mentioned in the last post, to some extent it grows distasteful to many people.
Of course Bachmann is playing politics, but her Burr story rings true, and it seems clear in the video that she is heartfelt (or a very good actress) when she identifies her reaction to the book as a defining moment. Her distaste for its denigration of historical figures she "revered" led her to question her political allegiances, and she switched parties. The book's point of view clearly offended her at a deep level. It rings true to me that a visceral moment that shakes a person's deep held convictions would lead to the kind of change Bachmann describes.
That the book is fiction didn't matter. The aesthetic was offensive to her.
Wikipedia contends that the novel was meticulously researched and based on fact: "Vidal did meticulous research of hundreds of documents to come up with his alternative reading of history. In an afterword, the author maintains that in all but a few instances, the characters' actions and many of their words are based on actual historical records."
Bachmann doesn't argue that the book is inaccurate. She argues that it's vision was repugnant to her.
The question comes back to: Can the progressives create a vision that more people find compelling?
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Coffee Party, part II
One of the reasons I don't pursue political action is that I never know what is going on. This is true. I'm usually happily oblivious to whatever the latest trend is.
But I stumbled onto the Coffee Party in my usual Mr. Magoo way, which was to think, hey, we need a coffee party. Ok, the world has been there and done that. A year ago. Well, I have been thinking about this for a year too. ... my tendency to mull makes me a much better scholar than political activist ... :)
I went to the Coffee Party website, which is connected with Movement for the People (or perhaps Movementforthepeople). I agree that we need a government that works, an end to misinformation and a reexamination of the Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited campaign spending. Corporations aren't individuals. I agree. But it doesn't say much. What is a government that "works?" What is "misinformation?" Tea Partiers also want a government that works and an end to misinformation. Do we need another group to stand for these abstractions?
I am thinking about coffee and coffeepots in a concrete, tactile way as symbols of a particular period in American culture in which the country pulled together and became a powerhouse while promoting equalitarianism. This is the period from the start of the New Deal to, let's say, the Arab oil embargo. What images from that period give us the "warm fuzzies?" What are the sensory images that conveys prosperity with decency, community and equality? I would argue the coffee pot (or cup) is a good starting point. People used to sit around the kitchen table and drink coffee and talk. People used to gather around the coffee pot at work and drink coffee and talk. What is more American that the coffee break? Does anyone have time for a coffee break anymore?
For 30 years now, people on the right have been imagining themselves in a better world--the world of McGuffey readers and Little House on the Prairie schoolhouses with desks all lined up in a row, the 3R's taught and nothing else, and they believe a bloated government has overcomplicated and corrupted us. This vision of simplicity and self-reliance powers the Tea Party movement on a visceral level, I would argue. (Obviously, I'm reducing a huge amount of complexity, but this is a blog.) Much as progressives would like to delude themselves that those "not-very-bright right wingers" are being brainwashed by a flood of corporate money, no--they're a grassroots movement that grew under the corporate radar, isn't stupid, is sincere and goodhearted and has a vision. I know this, because having traveled in Christian circles in the 1990s, I was plugged into it. The corporate world is now trying to ride this horse politically, having to some extent ridden it economically, and should be worried. I think they are worried.
But my point is that there's an aesthetic vision that drives the small town, small government, personal relationship and responsibility group, aka the Tea Party, and it is a vision with a concrete, tactile quality that harkens back, as Glenn Beck says, to the pre-1912, pre-income tax era. It may be an idealized picture and we may say, but, but ... pre-1912, look at the racism, look at sexism, look at lives broken by the "Panics," the exploitation of the immigrant, the 60-hour work week, but the point is, people are culling out the best from the past and using that as an ideal.
I think what some on the right hate about progressives is the tendency to always react to history with negativity. I think progressives are simply trying to right the balance and speak for the once voiceless, but that can get tiresome without an alternative.
So, while the period from 1932 to 1974 was fraught with severe problems: economic depression, war, a war economy, racism, sexism, pollution, corruption etc,, that should not deter us from finding the good. Every period is fraught with many bad somethings. But why not use the coffee cup or coffee pot as a symbol of what was admirable in that period? Good things happened. People shared sacrifice--just about a week ago, my mother-in-law showed me a ration card she'd saved from World War II. People endured rationing for the common good! Ordinary people owned nice but not oversized homes and bowled together and attended low cost colleges, and were able to find decent-paying, secure jobs ... these things did happen, if imperfectly. People paid higher taxes and prospered.
Well, I'm not a politician, and yet I think we can all agree that our country seems to be suffering and that we need to do something about it, which starts with a vision. More lives have been moved by the Peaceable Kingdom than the laws of Deuteronomy, at least imho. I think, too, especially at this cultural moment, we need to create a vision for the future by pulling from the past.
But I stumbled onto the Coffee Party in my usual Mr. Magoo way, which was to think, hey, we need a coffee party. Ok, the world has been there and done that. A year ago. Well, I have been thinking about this for a year too. ... my tendency to mull makes me a much better scholar than political activist ... :)
I went to the Coffee Party website, which is connected with Movement for the People (or perhaps Movementforthepeople). I agree that we need a government that works, an end to misinformation and a reexamination of the Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited campaign spending. Corporations aren't individuals. I agree. But it doesn't say much. What is a government that "works?" What is "misinformation?" Tea Partiers also want a government that works and an end to misinformation. Do we need another group to stand for these abstractions?
I am thinking about coffee and coffeepots in a concrete, tactile way as symbols of a particular period in American culture in which the country pulled together and became a powerhouse while promoting equalitarianism. This is the period from the start of the New Deal to, let's say, the Arab oil embargo. What images from that period give us the "warm fuzzies?" What are the sensory images that conveys prosperity with decency, community and equality? I would argue the coffee pot (or cup) is a good starting point. People used to sit around the kitchen table and drink coffee and talk. People used to gather around the coffee pot at work and drink coffee and talk. What is more American that the coffee break? Does anyone have time for a coffee break anymore?
For 30 years now, people on the right have been imagining themselves in a better world--the world of McGuffey readers and Little House on the Prairie schoolhouses with desks all lined up in a row, the 3R's taught and nothing else, and they believe a bloated government has overcomplicated and corrupted us. This vision of simplicity and self-reliance powers the Tea Party movement on a visceral level, I would argue. (Obviously, I'm reducing a huge amount of complexity, but this is a blog.) Much as progressives would like to delude themselves that those "not-very-bright right wingers" are being brainwashed by a flood of corporate money, no--they're a grassroots movement that grew under the corporate radar, isn't stupid, is sincere and goodhearted and has a vision. I know this, because having traveled in Christian circles in the 1990s, I was plugged into it. The corporate world is now trying to ride this horse politically, having to some extent ridden it economically, and should be worried. I think they are worried.
But my point is that there's an aesthetic vision that drives the small town, small government, personal relationship and responsibility group, aka the Tea Party, and it is a vision with a concrete, tactile quality that harkens back, as Glenn Beck says, to the pre-1912, pre-income tax era. It may be an idealized picture and we may say, but, but ... pre-1912, look at the racism, look at sexism, look at lives broken by the "Panics," the exploitation of the immigrant, the 60-hour work week, but the point is, people are culling out the best from the past and using that as an ideal.
I think what some on the right hate about progressives is the tendency to always react to history with negativity. I think progressives are simply trying to right the balance and speak for the once voiceless, but that can get tiresome without an alternative.
So, while the period from 1932 to 1974 was fraught with severe problems: economic depression, war, a war economy, racism, sexism, pollution, corruption etc,, that should not deter us from finding the good. Every period is fraught with many bad somethings. But why not use the coffee cup or coffee pot as a symbol of what was admirable in that period? Good things happened. People shared sacrifice--just about a week ago, my mother-in-law showed me a ration card she'd saved from World War II. People endured rationing for the common good! Ordinary people owned nice but not oversized homes and bowled together and attended low cost colleges, and were able to find decent-paying, secure jobs ... these things did happen, if imperfectly. People paid higher taxes and prospered.
Well, I'm not a politician, and yet I think we can all agree that our country seems to be suffering and that we need to do something about it, which starts with a vision. More lives have been moved by the Peaceable Kingdom than the laws of Deuteronomy, at least imho. I think, too, especially at this cultural moment, we need to create a vision for the future by pulling from the past.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Coffee Party
I keep thinking that we need to start a Coffee Party, as a robust alternative to the Tea Party.
The Coffee Party would support a strong and growing middle class, deficit reduction, an adequately funded government ( is it not shameful that we are letting our infrastructure fall apart?), and most of all, especially, if we are going to return to a pre-World War II mindset, a significant reduction in our military presence around the world. As a Christian, I would want peace on earth and full, loving care for the poor, but I am trying here to be pragmatic.
What do you think? For those of us raised on stories of 1950s coffee clatches and for those of us who need that morning cup of coffee to get through the commute to the office, or who drink a cup of coffee while looking through the want ads--for those of us regular souls who simply want some assurances that the middle class will survive and grow to embrace the underclass, for those who want the dignity and equality that a cup of coffee represents, especially if it is the fair trade variety, how about the Coffee Party?
Coffee is a "can-do" drink. It's not about "we can't afford it, we can't, we won't, we have to shrink and get smaller and shrivel all up." It's about finding resources we didn't know we had, revving up our energy and making things happen that are good for everyone. It's just so American.
OK--I have to say it: a Coffee Party "would be good to the last drop."
What do you think?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Ambrose and Day
I have not blogged for awhile, and that has been weighing on me. I've been censoring myself since I wish to blog about "the state of the United States"--ie., politics (inevitably), and yet, I hesitate because politics are divisive and lead to misunderstandings. As a person who at least attempts to stay spiritually grounded, I understand that truly lasting and Spirit-led political change comes from a deep place of compassion and unity. On the other hand, I find myself distressed and worried about the state of the union.
In seminary, we read about Ambrose and John of Chryostom, powerful fourth century bishops. Both believed that God created an abundant earth for the benefit and use of all humans and that the rich are stealing from the poor when they allow people to go hungry and homeless. I was encouraged by the compassionate theology of sharing of Ambrose and John; I was saddened when, doing a little more research, I found them labeled "Christian socialists." I wonder why every sort of sharing is labeled with that term. They were simply stating that the rich have a moral obligation to share with the poor because their goods are not "theirs," but God's. Jesus seems to have said something similar to Peter: "Feed my sheep."
Dorothy Day, in our century, also made a central mission of sharing the world's good with the poor, setting up soup kitchens, homeless shelters and Catholic Worker farms. She wanted to combat what she called the "dirty, rotten system," understanding that many people become poor because the system is stacked against them. But whether they were the so-called deserving poor or the unworthy poor, she opened her home to them all, because she believed this was what the gospel preached. Interestingly, especially in light of our times, her Catholic Worker cofounder, Peter Maurin, was what we today would call a libertarian. (Day called him an anarchist.) Day and Maurin couldn't have been farther apart politically: He was highly distrustful of government, feared government tyranny, and believed in one-on-one, personal charity rather than government programs. Day, on the other hand, worked to change the system and establish government programs to help ordinary people. Despite their differences, however, the two were able to work together, respected each other deeply and pooled both sets of ideas and opinions to create a whole that was bigger than either one. Is this possible today?
In seminary, we read about Ambrose and John of Chryostom, powerful fourth century bishops. Both believed that God created an abundant earth for the benefit and use of all humans and that the rich are stealing from the poor when they allow people to go hungry and homeless. I was encouraged by the compassionate theology of sharing of Ambrose and John; I was saddened when, doing a little more research, I found them labeled "Christian socialists." I wonder why every sort of sharing is labeled with that term. They were simply stating that the rich have a moral obligation to share with the poor because their goods are not "theirs," but God's. Jesus seems to have said something similar to Peter: "Feed my sheep."
Dorothy Day, in our century, also made a central mission of sharing the world's good with the poor, setting up soup kitchens, homeless shelters and Catholic Worker farms. She wanted to combat what she called the "dirty, rotten system," understanding that many people become poor because the system is stacked against them. But whether they were the so-called deserving poor or the unworthy poor, she opened her home to them all, because she believed this was what the gospel preached. Interestingly, especially in light of our times, her Catholic Worker cofounder, Peter Maurin, was what we today would call a libertarian. (Day called him an anarchist.) Day and Maurin couldn't have been farther apart politically: He was highly distrustful of government, feared government tyranny, and believed in one-on-one, personal charity rather than government programs. Day, on the other hand, worked to change the system and establish government programs to help ordinary people. Despite their differences, however, the two were able to work together, respected each other deeply and pooled both sets of ideas and opinions to create a whole that was bigger than either one. Is this possible today?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Year of Living Republicanly
I was thinking of doing a blog called The Year of Living Republicanly, as everybody seems to be doing a "Year of Living" series ... And, OK, I was pretty serious, as I felt and feel out-of-touch in a grassroots way with my Republican brothers and sisters. If I listen only to one group, I begin to become the thing I dislike. For example., I remember how stunned I was when one of my Republican friends told me in 1996 that the only reason I voted for Clinton was that I was brainwashed by people with hidden agendas. Whattttt? I sputtered---NO, that's YOU... you voted for Bob Dole because you've been brainwashed by people with hidden agendas! Oh--I get it. BOTH sides say that. "My" side is a mirror of "their" side.
OK. Point taken.
I thought a good way to avoid groupthink (an oxymoron if there ever was one) and liberal fundamentalist partisanship would be to commit to reading and interacting in a serious way with conservatives. I started researching and then thought: I can't do this. And it wasn't the Republicans. Instead, it's the overall political and economic situation in this country right now that's, let's say, a "downer" ... and while disengagement isn't the answer, merely worrying isn't the answer either.
When I think about the U.S. situation today, I look at history, and wonder: How can having a few very, very wealthy people and many people becoming poorer and angrier by the day, not end badly? I think Weimar Republic, French aristocracy circa 1787, Russian aristocracy circa 1903, English aristocracy circa 1635 .... not good. The short-term positives I hang onto are a: I'm no doubt being an alarmist, b. even if crisis hit, countries with a democratic --or at least stable--tradition tend to come out right on the other side. c. California so far seems to be an example of people trying to use the political process to drive reform.
But--before I drop this topic of politics-- in the spirt of non-partisanship, I quote from Michael Lind in Salon. Lind has a point of view--that Americans have a right as citizens to "freedom from want" or "economic citizenship." This organizing point of view transcends allegiance to any one party. (His full piece is at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/story/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/01/11/second_bill_of_rights.)
Here's what he writes:
"While George W. Bush pushed for partial privatization of Social Security, he failed because of massive public opposition. But Bush and the Republican majority in Congress succeeded in enacting the Social Security drug benefit, a flawed but genuine expansion of economic citizenship. Clinton is the only president to have successfully supported the destruction of a New Deal entitlement, while Bush presided over the greatest expansion of the Rooseveltian entitlement system since Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare."
Do you have an organizing principle or point of view that transcends party politics? Where does faith work into this for you?
OK. Point taken.
I thought a good way to avoid groupthink (an oxymoron if there ever was one) and liberal fundamentalist partisanship would be to commit to reading and interacting in a serious way with conservatives. I started researching and then thought: I can't do this. And it wasn't the Republicans. Instead, it's the overall political and economic situation in this country right now that's, let's say, a "downer" ... and while disengagement isn't the answer, merely worrying isn't the answer either.
When I think about the U.S. situation today, I look at history, and wonder: How can having a few very, very wealthy people and many people becoming poorer and angrier by the day, not end badly? I think Weimar Republic, French aristocracy circa 1787, Russian aristocracy circa 1903, English aristocracy circa 1635 .... not good. The short-term positives I hang onto are a: I'm no doubt being an alarmist, b. even if crisis hit, countries with a democratic --or at least stable--tradition tend to come out right on the other side. c. California so far seems to be an example of people trying to use the political process to drive reform.
But--before I drop this topic of politics-- in the spirt of non-partisanship, I quote from Michael Lind in Salon. Lind has a point of view--that Americans have a right as citizens to "freedom from want" or "economic citizenship." This organizing point of view transcends allegiance to any one party. (His full piece is at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/story/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/01/11/second_bill_of_rights.)
Here's what he writes:
"While George W. Bush pushed for partial privatization of Social Security, he failed because of massive public opposition. But Bush and the Republican majority in Congress succeeded in enacting the Social Security drug benefit, a flawed but genuine expansion of economic citizenship. Clinton is the only president to have successfully supported the destruction of a New Deal entitlement, while Bush presided over the greatest expansion of the Rooseveltian entitlement system since Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare."
Do you have an organizing principle or point of view that transcends party politics? Where does faith work into this for you?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Hillary for President?
Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary and people seem mad at her. How come she can't "get out of the way?" Off the playground?
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that we set up an electoral process, a method of doing things, and then get mad at Clinton for wanting to follow the rules? Shouldn't voters in places like Pennsylvania and Indiana get the same chance to have their voices heard as voters in Iowa or New Hampshire? If the primary process is so bad, why do we have it? And if we have it, why do we get angry at a candidate for using it? Why not simply change it for the next election and have all the primaries within, say, a four-week period? It seems hypocritical to have a process and then want to circumvent it when it becomes inconvenient. And it seems typical to me of how women so often get kicked for trying to follow the rules.
Clinton has been criticized by, among others, Maureen Dowd, for scratching Obama's reputation. But isn't she doing him a good service in preparing him for the the general election should he get the nomination? I'm sure what she's thrown at him is nothing compared to what he will get should he be the nominee.
One of the more bizarre columns I read complained that the white world was putting Obama in his place for daring to be too uppity. Hello universe. Who is putting him "in his place?" A woman. Hasn't this same woman been endlessly punished for daring to step out away from the edges of the playground and take a place in the center of it?
My money is still on Clinton getting the nomination, odd as that may seem. And I think she would be a good president. What do you think of all this?
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that we set up an electoral process, a method of doing things, and then get mad at Clinton for wanting to follow the rules? Shouldn't voters in places like Pennsylvania and Indiana get the same chance to have their voices heard as voters in Iowa or New Hampshire? If the primary process is so bad, why do we have it? And if we have it, why do we get angry at a candidate for using it? Why not simply change it for the next election and have all the primaries within, say, a four-week period? It seems hypocritical to have a process and then want to circumvent it when it becomes inconvenient. And it seems typical to me of how women so often get kicked for trying to follow the rules.
Clinton has been criticized by, among others, Maureen Dowd, for scratching Obama's reputation. But isn't she doing him a good service in preparing him for the the general election should he get the nomination? I'm sure what she's thrown at him is nothing compared to what he will get should he be the nominee.
One of the more bizarre columns I read complained that the white world was putting Obama in his place for daring to be too uppity. Hello universe. Who is putting him "in his place?" A woman. Hasn't this same woman been endlessly punished for daring to step out away from the edges of the playground and take a place in the center of it?
My money is still on Clinton getting the nomination, odd as that may seem. And I think she would be a good president. What do you think of all this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)