Progress Slow, then Sudden

After generations of discrimination, society has become far more accepting of homosexuality. This rapid transformation offers hope for other progressive changes in attitude.



Disclaimer: the post below discusses offensive language which I do not endorse.

A buddy recently mentioned his young son had just seen the animated film Despicable Me 3, which included a scene featuring '80s rock staple "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits. Accordingly, he later played the song for his kid, and was shocked to discover the lyrics prominently featured the word "faggot". I was similarly surprised, having never noticed that in a song I've considered an innocuous bit of "dad rock" used in movies and car commercials aplenty.

In the song's lyrics the epithet is used to insult the protagonist -- a disparagement of the lead singer and his supposedly cushy lifestyle. It is not an affirmation of the flagrant homophobia of, say, early '90s NWA or early '00s Eminem (or the Beastie Boys' 1986 debut album, originally titled Don't Be a Faggot). But its casual appearance arguably makes it more jarring -- no popular artist today goes anywhere near such language.

"I used to use that word so freely in middle school," my friend noted. "I had a hard time typing it just now." It's a sign of how far treatment of the LGBT community and consciousness about the impact of language have come in such a short time.

Go Left, America!

Bernie Sanders' candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination should be lauded for, at a minimum, unapologetically bringing liberal/progressive social justice views to the forefront of the national dialogue.



For most of the decade-and-a-half I can claim to have followed politics in the U.S. closely, it's been the Republican Party's right-most wing that has set the terms of the debate¹ and the Democratic Party that has largely emphasized moderation rather than countering with stridently left-wing ideas. The roots of this dynamic lie in recent history.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan won re-election while carrying 49 out of 50 states, a little more than a decade after fellow Republican Richard Nixon accomplished the same feat. It cemented a rightward re-alignment in American politics that has resulted in compromised liberal politics to this day. Bill Clinton was famously a "New Democrat" and leader of the "Third Way", which was successful in winning elections but required, for better and worse, adopting numerous conservative positions: proclaiming an end to "welfare as we know it" and "the era of big government", pushing for deregulation and free trade deals, passing the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, and harsh anti-crime stands.

Next, Normalize Iran Relations

As has been the case with America's failed Cuba policy, decades of fighting Iran economically and via proxy wars have had a high moral, economic, and human cost for both sides and not led to any productive changes.

Last month, President Obama announced his decision to begin the normalization of U.S. relations with Cuba, an acknowledgement that this bizarre policy of the past half-century had failed to produce regime change and had only hurt the Cuban people. The president's reversal of long-standing U.S. policy in this matter was wise, overdue, and will continue to be extremely contentious -- but another decision would be bolder still: normalizing relations with Iran.

A brief bit of history: In 1953, the CIA collaborated in the removal of Iran's prime minster, Mohammad Mosaddegh, concerned about his power struggle with the country's Western-backed monarch Shah Pahlavi and over fears Mosaddegh would align his country with the Soviet Union. An entrenched Pahlavi and his notorious secret police, the SAVAK, became so hated, Iran exploded in a violent, radical (Shia) Islamic revolution in 1979. The depressing chain of events linking the U.S. and Iran since then includes the Embassy Hostage Crisis, the Contra affair, Iran-sponsored Hezbollah bombings of American targets in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, the U.S. shooting down Iran Air 655, arming (Sunni) Saddam Hussein for a staggeringly bloody fight against Iran (the 20th century's longest war), eventually having to fight two wars against Hussein, and ending up with Iraq today a virtual proxy state of Iran.

Black or White

Conversation about race in America remains hampered by a historically rigid perspective and the confusion of even well-intentioned people over how to acknowledge race.

It's taken for granted the description of Barack Obama as our country's first black president. Something about this designation has always troubled me. I wonder whether the president's white mother, and his white grandparents who helped raise him, would have considered the label a slight to their roles in his life. Sure, much of the reasoning behind celebrating the "first black president" label is a country looking to redeem itself for its history of injustice against blacks. But the underlying mindset of "if you're not fully white, you're black" is the same that fueled the Jim Crow-era "one-drop rule", whereby any Americans who had any trace of non-white ancestry were deemed "colored" and were legally discriminated against.

This is just one example where our country can even innocuously display an awkward handling of race. Take the term "African-American" itself, often used as a well-intentioned substitute for "black", regardless of whether the American being described is generations removed from Africa and despite the fact that non-recent-immigrant white Americans are never classified as "German-American" or "British-American". (Lindsey Lohan's Mean Girls character, on the other hand, is actually African-American.)

Secretary of Explaining Things

The first presidential debate between Messrs. Romney and Obama affected the media's election narrative but did little to provide the average voter with a substantive understanding of key issues.

The widespread and bipartisan media consensus is that Mitt Romney won Wednesday's first presidential debate.  A somnolent President Obama spent most of his time on stage looking down at his podium, handing an easy victory on appearances to the guy who dissed Big Bird. What was reinforced to me, though, is that these debates -- barring the emergence of a popular caricature of one of the candidates -- are aimed at influencing the media's election narrative, not at voters.

These debates are supposed to elucidate a candidate's positions and to help voters distinguish between their choices.  But in practice, we're not given much to work with.  The candidates present what seem like "Mad Libs", random numbers without context or explanation ("4 million jobs" from energy independence; "2 million more slots in our community colleges"; a "$5 trillion tax cut"; "$2 trillion in additional military spending"; a "$4 trillion deficit reduction plan").  The result is empty speechifying, not debating.  And in a generally polite encounter without memorable "zingers" from either man, my eyes were glazing over.

America's Forgotten Poor

Scant attention has been paid to the record rise of poverty levels in America.

Click graphic above to see a detailed breakdown on poverty in the U.S. (Source: NPR)

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and their campaigns have spent much of this election season tripping over themselves to appeal to all-important middle-class voters.  During the political conventions, Ann Romney spoke about how she and her husband once lived in a tiny apartment using an ironing board as a table.  She didn't note that they were living off of Mitt's investment income -- hey, he was the son of a multimillionaire governor -- while Mitt finished his studies.  Michelle Obama told a story about how when she began dating Barack his car was "rusted out" and had a hole in the door.  She skirted the fact that the pair met while working for a prestigious Chicago law firm.

The point here isn't to attack either candidate for their typical stretched "we're just like you" spiel, but to draw attention to the entire large segment of the populace that no one is overly concerned with winning over: the poor.  Over 15% of Americans, nearly 50 million people, live at or below the poverty line, defined as $23,000 for a family of four.  While much election-year rhetoric concerns the tax burden of the rich, or who is the real champion of the middle class, little more than lip service is paid to the lower rungs of our society.

No Easy Way

Faced with limited options in dealing with the latest spike in unrest in the Middle East, and the inability to effectively control the situation, the Obama administration is right to have a measured response.

AFP

I've seen the infamous anti-Muslim video Innocence of Muslims, and it's almost impossible to believe that this is the symbolic center of the biggest geopolitical crisis of the year.  It's a nonsensical jumble of scenes that don't form a cogent movie or trailer, and has the production value of an elementary school play.  Actors in cheap Halloween costumes and brownface, their spoken lines badly dubbed over with incongruous voices to spout inscrutable references to Mohammed, and crude allusions to homosexuality and rape -- one would think such a video would be left to languish in total obscurity on a corner of the Internet... and yet, here we are.

But this video isn't really what's fueling the latest round of unrest in the Arab world.  Hardly anyone has actually watched the film, but the masses are appalled at the very idea of their religion being disrespected.  Meanwhile, certain groups have seized upon this video as a pretext to achieve their own goals of whipping up anti-Americanism and fomenting violence.  Protests (albeit of limited size) are currently raging throughout North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia; tragically, last Tuesday the Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed along with three other Americans at the consulate in Benghazi.  The attack may have been a calculated terrorist strike that took advantage of the chaos.  Meanwhile, Israel has sounded fresh alarm bells over Iran's progress with its nuclear program, with President Benjamin Netanyahu urging the U.S. to deal with Iran while threatening to attack first himself.  Amidst this maelstrom, the Obama administration has acted with restraint, commendably withstanding the high political pressure and bias toward doing something.

Obama, Reloaded?

Based on my initial reactions, President Obama's highly anticipated State of the Union tonight was not a tour-de-force, but it did at long last present the image of a hands-on, involved president that we have missed for the past year.  If I'm hopeful of anything at all after this speech, it's that Obama will be much more visible and hands-on about his agenda for the rest of his term, and thus will be at least more effective than the feckless Congressional Democrats who have engendered so much ill will.

The president's speech didn't start off promisingly.  Obama came out in full-bore populist mode, but sounded awkward and uncomfortable doing it.  Channeling the anti-Wall Street sentiment, he mentioned levying huge fees on top banks--but left that explosive statement without any details on who or how.  Yikes.  Then came the announcement of the spending freeze, admirable given the government's ever-rising mound of debt, but hard to pull off during a deep recession.  Perhaps this won't be significant; the president immediately excepted the major programs (two wars, Social Security, Medicare) from the freeze.  I'm interested to see if Congress adopts "pay as you go" and whether Obama makes good on his threat of the veto.

For the first half of the speech, I was largely bored by the amount of vague and generic lines coming from Obama.  I was off-put by the passive agressive Bush-bashing (never by name) that he repeatedly engaged in.  Fine, I get it, you wanted to explain that you inherited massive deficits.  But to keep harping on the previous adminstration?  Come on.  Actually, if Obama really wanted to show a lack of partisanship, and score points, when he came to the part on his speech where he was talking about America's support for freedom and democracy, he could have easily quoted George W. Bush.  It would have been a nice gesture, practical, and would have earned him kudos from the other side of the aisle--just one short line!

But in the second half of his speech, Obama definitely got more comfortable, and had more interesting things to say.  I like how he underscored the importance of infrastructure investment, noting for example, that we should have a high-speed rail network like France's or China's.  (I'm still skeptical this happens, though.)  I like how he punctured the pap around the fantasy expectations of his campaign mantra "Change", replacing the inarticulate with a palpable and urgent call to action.

I liked what I heard about developing more energy sources--mentioning nuclear energy and offshore drilling was a nice political compromise (and as a strong proponent of nuclear power, was happy to hear it!).  He also demonstrated an awareness of the political landscape in acknowledging the health care bill's unpopularity (specifically calling out "all the lobbying and horse-trading"); telling Democrats that they have a large majority and have to be able to solve problems; and showing some backbone and common sense in admonishing Republicans that they just can't say no to everything.  Especially with Scott Brown taking the Senate seat in Massachusetts, the Republicans really have to be a partner in governing the country, and Obama said as much.

In the most clear indicator of priorities, foreign policy and national security took a clear backstage to domestic policy (~90% of this speech).  The president surely recognizes that the be-all, end-all for American voters right now is jobs.  That unemployment figure, above 10% right now (and not including discouraged workers), has to come down if he hopes to be able to advance any part of his agenda.  So while it may have been nice to hear him say he intends to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", or serve up crowd pleasers like college-loan forgiveness, they will all be forgotten if he doesn't take care of Issue #1.

Most importantly about this speech, more than any content, is that Obama came off as grounded and understanding of the American public's mindset as well as the political landscape.  For too much of his first year, Obama has been seen as the detached president, one who, though smart and of level temperament, has not conveyed an image of personal leadership and engagement in major issues.  Tonight he was able to display empathy, show that he was taking tangible steps to address the problems, and largely sound down-to-earth and reasonable.  This, more than anything else, is what the public needed to see in the president: that he understand, that he cares, and that he can do something to fix it.

Upping the Stakes in Afghanistan

Last night President Obama gave a speech announcing a large increase of American troops in Afghanistan and outlined a detailed strategy to achieve our aims in that country and have an eventual drawdown in our military presence. The easy comparison to this decision is President Bush's gamble on a "surge" of additional troops to Iraq announced in 2007, a move I supported then just as I now support Obama's decision, which he summed up as "a military effort to create the conditions for a transition, a civilian surge that reinforces positive action, and an effective partnership with Pakistan".

We can't easily expect that Obama's move will produce the same results as Bush's successful surge.  Iraq, with its far more educated populace and modern society with decent infrastructure and civil institutions, may in fact seem like a cakewalk in comparison.  To simplify greatly, Iraq just needed temporary security help to maintain order in the power vacuum that was created when the iron fist that had ruled them for decades, Saddam Hussein, was deposed.  Now, a new ruling class has emerged, and a reasonable sense of order (relatively speaking) reigns.

Afghanistan, however, has few reliable national institutions, which is why I approve of the Obama plan's stated effort to build up the Afghan army and police.  Those groups at least have a strong potential to receive significant support and trust from the local populace.  Even so, there remains the pressing issue of getting the Afghan people to buy in to the central government.  Hamid Karzai and company are widely viewed as inefficient and extremely corrupt.  Further, vast sections of the country are virtually autonomous and see no need to pay fealty to the national government--why should they, when they don't interact much or receive anything from it?

In these areas, the governors or tribal leaders or village chiefs make their own alliances of convenience, and that often means allying with the Taliban.  This doesn't mean they're in tune with all of the medievalism and brutality of the Taliban movement--often, these are just people who are doing what's convenient.  They can switch sides frequently, and have done so back and forth, many times in years past.  Navigating this dynamic will have to be an important part of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's strategy.

Establishing the government's legitimacy and enticing enemies into a big tent are key, but that leaves one other main issue, which traditionally has been the elephant in the room: tackling the Taliban at its roots in Pakistan.  That's why I was heartened to hear Obama declare "our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan".  He acknowledged the consequences of past U.S. policy with regards to Pakistan, which has had disastrous results, and pledged a new way forward.  Will it be enough?  I hope so, because cleansing Swat, Waziristan, and any other regions where extremists may lay is the determining factor in whether Afghanistan will have a viable future.

Yes, President Obama has taken a big gamble here.  But it is a necessary one, and luckily, one he articulated for extremely well in conveying the necessity and urgency of the mission to the American people.  Obama has done a good job of managing a tricky balancing act between committing to the mission fully, yet still finding a way to manage our costs and time frame, and pushing responsibility onto Afghans for their own long-term success.  I can't say today that come 2011, the job will be done (and I don't believe Obama, as confirmed by McChrystal, sees that as an absolute deadline), but I think that because of Obama's speech, things will look a lot better then than they do today.