Will the Real John McCain Please Step Up

After the tragic loss of Ted Kennedy, we are in dire need of a statesman to step up and help shape the country's future. No one seems eager to fill this vacuum of real leadership in Congress, but I can envision the possibility of John McCain donning the Lion's mantle. Those who know me may be surprised that I would identify him as a candidate but hear me out. Let's look at some of the reasons why this makes sense and some obstacles that could prevent it. We need someone who, regardless of personal ideology, can work with people across the political spectrum to get things done. We need someone with the steely courage to stand up for what's right even in the face of savage attacks, and we need an honest broker who can not only speak truth to power, but also speak truth to ignorance, which can actually be harder than confronting power.

Apart from these general characteristics of a statesman, there are other factors that pertain to our current circumstances that could make McCain the right choice. For one thing, the Democrats are very well represented at the moment and perhaps a Republican who is willing to work across the aisle despite personally being fairly conservative could help end the opposition for opposition's sake that has created the public's nearly universal contempt for Congress. Even more importantly, only a strong and at least fairly conservative Republican can wrest control of that party from Rush Limbaugh and his ilk who currently hold sway. May God have mercy on us all if those vipers continue to wield such power.

McCain's credentials for heroism in service of his country are bulletproof. I can't fathom the courage it took to remain in North Vietnamese captivity rather that accepting early release under circumstances he believed to be inappropriate. Likewise, he has a history of working on a bi-partisan basis to pass important legislation, and his national reputation was built in large measure by "straight talk" or speaking the truth regardless of possible political fallout. Also, many believe that Ted Kennedy dedicated his life to becoming one of the country's greatest senators only after his bid to become president was unsuccessful. This parallel may also be cause for optimism. Finally, McCain has publicly condemned "agents of intolerance" from the religious right, and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have shown very public disdain for him because his brand of conservatism is not that of the vicious, fire-breathing hate merchant.

While all of this is encouraging, there are some serious problems that must be corrected before his ascent is possible. The John McCain of late is not the man celebrated above. I fully understand the reality of national politics, but to be the one who can contribute so much to a country crying out for courageous leadership, Senator McCain must repudiate some of the things he has recently embraced. Anyone who is to be taken seriously as a straight talker on controversial public issues must issue nothing less than an unequivocal, full-throated denunciation of his former running mate's reckless idiocy on health care, just as he did with Congressman Wilson's outburst. Unfortunately, Senator McCain has not only failed to distance himself from former Governor Palin's nonsense, he has thrown his integrity under the "Straight Talk Express" by basically defending it. Unless and until he is willing to go back to condemning agents of intolerance and other offensive elements of his party's base and give the American people a welcome dose of candor, he will simply be one voice from the minority party rather than the man who can take his place in history among our greatest senators. Will the real John McCain please stand up and allow the possibility that the great statesman we so desperately need can step up.

Calling All Angels

This post is named after a Jane Siberry song that was used in the movie Pay it Forward to provide foreground music for the film's powerful ending scene. However, I'm really using the word angels to refer to our "better angels" as Lincoln did in his first inaugural address, about five weeks before Fort Sumter was fired upon. These were the closing words of that speech, "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory...will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

The battle between our demons and our better angels is one that is constantly being waged within each of us on a personal level, and by our society on a broader level. Over the long haul our better angels tend to prevail, at least on a societal level, but how much misery we inflict upon ourselves and one another in the interim depends on how much we indulge our demons. I'm saddened by the way we have given in to our worst selves lately. There was a lesson in The Karate Kid that, while given in reference to martial arts, can just as easily be applied to politics or how we shape our society. Mr. Miyagi's said, "Karate here" (pointing to his head); "karate here" (pointing to his heart); "karate never here" (pointing to the pit of his stomach). Sadly, we are going in the opposite direction with intellectual rigor, compassion and empathy too often being unseated by anger and bile as the locus of our public discourse.

What ever happened to the benefit of the doubt? Right now, if a statement can be taken two ways, one of them benign and one not, we not only assume the worst, but we take it and run with it, attaching a series of things that will follow as a logical consequence, then scream at the top of our lungs, we're all doomed, doomed I say, doomed!! Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are literally making their living at the moment by swearing that an Obama administration means nothing less than literally the complete and utter annihilation of everything America has ever been. While most of us, even thoughtful conservatives who disagree with the president, can laugh off the absurd hyperbole, the number of people who have come unglued by the endless ranting of doomsayers is probably in the millions. Fox News Channel should change its motto from "Fair and Balanced" to "Keeping Angry White People Angry Since 1996." Of course, Fox News has branched out and they now keep angry white people angry and scared.

I'll leave you with an illustration of my point. We grew up venerating Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Now imagine Obama saying the same thing. Talk radio hosts and listeners would be in a blind rage, and in some cases literally crying, over this indisputable proof that Obama's true agenda is to dismantle the America our forefathers fought and died for. Here's one possible example of the blathering, "See, this is what I've been warning you about ladies and gentleman! This radical communist is showing his true colors. This guy wants to throw out 230 years of the rugged individualism that made this country the greatest the world has ever known. Comrade Obama doesn't want you to keep the fruits of your labor that you so richly deserve from your blood, sweat and tears! He wants you to ask yourselves what you can do to contribute to his statist agenda. I swear to you ladies and gentleman if we don't stand up and stop this radical now, the American dream will be dead and the country we love will no longer exist." Kennedy's words would be the same whether spoken by him in 1961 or by Obama 2009, but the meaning we would give them depends on whether we accept the translation of our demons or our better angels. The choice is ours.

Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Between the big political stories and the eighth anniversary of the barbaric 9/11 attacks, which were nothing less than an assault on civilization itself, this has been quite a week. There's actually a common thread running through all of it if you consider the words, "Yes, we've seen it before but never like this." We had experienced acts of war, terrorist attacks, and even a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center before September 11, 2001, but nothing like what we witnessed on that horrible day. Similarly, the political stories had certain historical parallels, but as a matter of degree, they were unprecedented. People were so profoundly affected by the events of eight years ago that my words can add nothing to the dialogue, but I would like to discuss the other stories.

Presidents often address schoolchildren, and though it's properly seen as an honor and privilege to have the president speak to you, it's frequently accompanied by partisan complaints. When Republican presidents do it Democrats cry political campaigning masquerading as service to our youth, and when Democratic presidents do it Republicans cry foul in the same way. But once again, yes, we've seen it before but not like this. Some people across the country were furious, making wild, often patently false, accusations and some school districts refused to show the address even though the full text of the thoroughly inoffensive speech was given in advance. Some critics were enraged because the department of education prepared a lesson plan at all, and some were apoplectic because an earlier version of that plan included an exercise where students write a letter outlining how they can help the president achieve his education goals.

Not only is that letter writing exercise exactly what George H.W. Bush suggested when he addressed students, but it's a perfectly valid lesson extending exercise that promotes critical thinking and active learning. The lesson plan was prepared by some of the country's top teachers and their big mistake was in not hate-proofing it. This is understandable; Americans are by nature optimistic, but teachers are especially so. They simply don't understand the cesspool of darkness in which the hearts and souls of some of these critics reside. Sadly, they have now learned the hard way and America is a little bit uglier for it. Speaking of which, the other big story was Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) openly shouting "You lie!" at the president from the House floor. We have seen partisan rumbling and undercurrents at similar events but once again, yes, we've seen it before but never like this. Even worse, talk radio was upset that he apologized for what every lawmaker of any stripe would call a breach for which an apology would be required.

It's easy to understand the enemy from without that cravenly attacked us eight years ago, but we desperately need to address the ever increasing corrosion from within. As Walt Kelly said via his Pogo comic strip, "We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us."

You Can't Fix Stupid...or Can You?

As football coaches are fond of saying, "You can't fix stupid." Until very recently I have labored under the presumption that these words are true. I'm only now beginning to question the wisdom of this maxim, and only because I think the very notion of stupidity may need to be examined more closely. Obviously, there is an important difference between ignorance and stupidity, but there may also be a critical distinction between different types of stupidity.

Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge. Being unaware of something doesn't necessarily indict someone's intellect. I'm not smarter than Stephen Hawking because I know my Aunt Barbara's phone number and Dr. Hawking doesn't. Let's say you can't identify the color puce because it's a shade so esoteric that crayola never even included it in the giant box with the built-in sharpener. (You know you exist on the fringe when you're excluded while Burnt Sienna and Raw Umber get seats at the table). Seeing something puce identified as such will forever eliminate your ignorance. On the other hand, let's say you refuse to accept the idea that limes are green, even though you concede that they're the same color as grass and that grass is green. In that case, we have stupidity rather than ignorance because you have all the required facts but you lack the ability to process them.

Thus, conventional wisdom would argue that ignorance can be very easily erased while stupidity is an intractable problem. I want to challenge this to an extent by suggesting that there are two types of stupidity, one which conforms to this reasoning and one which doesn't. I'll call them Type A and Type B. Someone with Type A stupidity was born that way and pretty much all you can do is put a paper hat on him and wish him well. He's as incapable of sophisticated thought as I am of bench pressing 300 lbs. Type B stupidity is another matter altogether. This phenomenon occurs when fear, rage, hatred or any combination thereof hijacks and paralyzes a well-functioning brain, rendering it as feckless as that of a low-grade moron. This has been occurring lately with disturbing frequency.

Take the example of Sean Hannity and Frank Luntz shortly after President Obama's address to Congress. They talked about how the president called insurance executives bad people (about 4:05 remaining in the video clip for those checking the link) because he said, referring to a series of current problems with insurance, "Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable." No one with an IQ above 75 would draw that conclusion from those words unless he or she was stricken with acute Type B stupidity. Unless we can retreat from the brink, this will become more commonplace as people, particularly from the right wing grow increasingly unhinged.

Here's the good news, we'll eventually regain our bearings and settle back into being a country that's not the embarrassment I'm watching on my television night after night. My entire point is that this temporary or Type B stupidity is easily curable. The moment one decides not to give into the madness, the demons are automatically exorcised and the mind regains it's full ability to function. You can fix (some forms of) stupid.

The Uncivil War

For those of you who find it odd that flammable and inflammable mean the same thing, here's another linguistic irony: Two of the worst instances of our country being torn apart at the seams are The Civil War of the mid 19th Century and what I call the "The Uncivil War" of the early 21st Century. I've lived through the "War on Poverty", "The War on Drugs", "The War on Terror", and now it appears, "The War on Civility" or The Uncivil War. Throughout our history, we've criticized our leaders and institutions, often harshly, but what we've witnessed recently is beyond the pale. Yes, in protests or while venting in private rants, many of us are guilty of saying some remarkably intemperate things. God knows I'm guilty of more than my share. It is, however, very different to have those who posture as responsible spokespeople acting in such a conspicuously irresponsible manner.

I need to clarify that the loss of civility I'm bemoaning doesn't merely relate to politeness or the tone of political discourse, but rather to substance. We have lost the restraint that marks a civilized society. Our disagreements have become back alley brawls where absolutely nothing is off-limits. We've shamelessly lost our sense of decency. You may recall that the beginning of the end of McCarthyism came when someone finally stood up and openly chastised Senator McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, Sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" We desperately need a similar moment now. We need leaders with the courage and integrity to stand up and say, "Stop it!"

We are poisoning the well of our democracy with dishonest and scurrilous attacks and we need to stop it immediately. A recent poll showed that only 42% of Republicans were satisfied that President Obama was born in the United States. This is not the tin foil hat wearing lunatic fringe; this also includes mainstream Americans who have been so conditioned by a relentless stream of fear, hatred and lies from right wing media and even some prominent Republicans to automatically swallow any negative claim about this president. The latest tempest in the latest teapot is the flap over the president's address to schoolchildren. The chairman of the Florida Republican Party condemned it as socialist indoctrination even though there wasn't a shred of evidence to support his fraudulent claim.

There is an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you (for being dishonest); fool me twice, shame on me (for being a chump). Well, shame on both of you, and knock it off. We have serious problems to solve, and we need all hands on deck. We simply can't afford the luxury of indulging reckless fantasies that serve to splinter our society at a time when we desperately need cooperation. We're better than this and we will certainly rise above it one day. The only open question is how much more of this disgrace we'll have to endure before we grow up and say, "Enough!"

A Modest Proposal

Earlier this week, Vermont struck a blow for equality and basic decency when it legalized same-sex marriage. Coincidentally, I have been meaning to post something on this subject after reading a piece on PollingReport.com. Presuming that none of you shares my dorkish love of statistical analyses, I'll summarize the article for you by saying that all indicators suggest that majority acceptance of same-sex marriage is very likely in the near future. Although Vermont is a very progressive state, this case is still notable because the marriage law came from the legislature and not a court decision insisting that people's rights must not be abridged. The Polling Report analysis put support for same-sex marriage at slightly above 40%, but based on the research I've done, many polls show that roughly 1/3 of the public favors gay marriage, 1/3 wants no legal recognition for same-sex couples, and 1/3 wants civil unions or something along those lines. It is this third group I want to discuss as the potential key to ending the battle once and for all.

In the near term, those staunchly opposed to any accommodation at all for these couples are unlikely to change. Even more so, those who believe in equal rights for all are extremely unlikely to change. Yes, we may lose the occasional stray, sometimes based on a claim of "finding Jesus". Of course if someone would deny a fellow human being this basic shot at happiness for that reason, then Jesus must have been found while hiding in that person's colon, but I digress. Getting back to the civil union people, or as I like to call them, those who slept through social studies while the rest of us learned about the folly of the "separate but equal" doctrine found in Plessy v. Ferguson, I think a modest proposal just might bring about the critical mass needed to move us forward. This group understands that loving, committed gay couples deserve the same rights, privileges and immunities granted to traditional married couples, but they think the term "marriage" should be exclusively conferred upon couples consisting of one man and one woman. Let's discuss my proposal.

If it's really just the noun "marriage" or the verb "marry" providing the bone of contention, we can bridge the gap and bring everyone a little closer together with simple wordplay punning on the dual meaning of the word gay. I propose that gay couples forbidden to "marry" can now "merry" one another. If you don't like them merrying, can they "Mary"? Before you say no, think of the ancillary benefits. Even homophobes should love this considering the countless hours of fun they have referring to gay men by female names. For instance, "Hey, did you hear about Tom and Stephen? (now in a mocking falsetto) They're getting Maryed" If you listen closely, you can almost hear the Beavis and Butt-head laughter that would follow, before being drowned out by the din of the monster truck rally they're attending.

For those who don't see the point of this exercise, I can explain it. A significant portion of the population, enough to block fair treatment for same-sex couples, is doing so because they think the word marriage should be very narrowly defined but society should not withhold basic rights from couples who don't qualify for their definition of marriage. If we say that those who can't "marry" can "merry" or "Mary" then we bring into sharp focus and put a very fine point on the claim that they have chosen to stake out and defend a distinction without a difference, while the cruelty of demanding second class status for these loving unions is very real. People would then be forced to face the reality that either this is a silly fight over semantics, or perhaps these people don't really believe that gay couples deserve the same rights despite lip service to the contrary. Forcing these people to confront that head-on is probably a very important step in the right direction.

Don't Despair; Churchill Was Right

Winston Churchill once quipped, "The United States invariably does the right thing after having exhausted every other alternative." Left-handed compliment or not, I actually find comfort in those words. We're sometimes late to take our rightful place among the forward thinking, advanced nations of the world, but I believe we'll always get there. In the final analysis, that's what matters most. Let's look at this in the context of capital punishment and our health care system.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that we could no longer execute the mentally retarded. Then in 2005, in Roper v. Simmons the Court ruled that we couldn't execute those who committed their crimes as juveniles. These are welcome examples of better late than never, but the stumbling path we took to get there certainly supports Churchill's assertion. From the 1980s forward, capital punishment of juvenile offenders separated the U.S. from literally every other country on earth we would consider civilized with respect to human rights. Indeed, except for China and a couple of African counties with dreadful human rights records, it left us with no peers whatsoever except for those we tend to scorn as savage backwaters of Islamic fundamentalism. The message here is that even when things look bleak, we will eventually come around.

With respect to the health care controversy that remains front and center, we currently have a problem that will eventually become a catastrophe if we do nothing but snipe at one another rather than fixing it. This is perhaps the one and only point of universal agreement among all reasonable, well-informed parties no matter where they stand on the proposed reforms. If the current proposals are wrong, then introduce something else and let's debate it. No side has a monopoly on wisdom. It would be a shame to squander this opportunity, particularly if we do so for no better reason than one side's desire to drill a hole on the left side of our collective boat, while they stand on the right side and high-five each, ignoring the seeping water as they celebrate their Pyrrhic victory. There is, however, good news. History has shown us that Churchill was right; even if we can't figure out what to do now, we will eventually find the solution before it's too late. When we do, we will have cast off the distinction of being the only modern, industrialized country that didn't adequately insure all of its citizens, just as we are no longer the only such country to carry out executions that are widely considered barbaric.