Archive for

Democracy in America: American Exceptionalism in Germany

On tour in Germany, candidate Obama praised the American spirit, calling us a “people of improbable hope,” and delivered an optimistic message to a crowd of 200,000+ Germans – many waving American flags. Striking the right tone in a time when our allies question America’s commitment to its role as sole hegemon, Obama declared himself “a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.”

But Rush Limbaugh would have none of this, quote-mining Obama’s self-description to ignore the fact that he called himself first a “proud citizen of the United States,” and then blasting Obama for misunderstanding American exceptionalism, “deemphasizing” his American-ness, and placing our commitment to the world above our commitment to ourselves.

The intellectual mendacity involved in this decontextualizing attack is insulting enough to the American intelligence, but what’s really criminal, here, is the misperception of what American exceptionalism is.  Limbaugh imagines American exceptionalism as a right inherent in our name – we’re America, ergo we’re different, and better than the rest – and an entitlement to walk alone on the world stage.  Mr. EIB couldn’t be farther from the truth.

America wasn’t founded to get away from the rest of the world: it was founded to be a beacon of hope to the world, the city on the hill to which the rest of the world could aspire.  Even if we’re better than the rest, we aren’t above the rest: we are, to borrow a distinction from the early Roman Empire, the “first among equals,” the princeps of the world.  Like Augustus, while we exceed others in auctoritas (moral authority), we exceed none in potestas (brute force and named political positions).  While exceptionalism entitles us to be different, and proud of our differences, it requires us to earn respect for our differences from the rest of the world, day in and day out, by living up to the high moral standard the rest of the world expects from us.

We aren’t better than the rest of the world because of the fact of America; we’re better because of the idea of America.  We’re exceptional and owed our moral authority only to the extent that the fact lives up to the idea.  If Barack Obama can make Germans believe in the idea of America, to the point that they’re willing to stand in a crowd of a quarter million and wave a foreign flag, I’d say he’s getting American exceptionalism just right.

Maybe that’s what Limbaugh’s really afraid of.

Elitism in America: Reflections on Carnival of the Elitist Bastards #3, and a Compliment for Dana Hunter

Wow. PZ Myers is one hell of a bastard. Before even discussing the latest submissions on elitism in politics, science, and the rest of the world, PZ insulted all of us contributors. Now THAT’S elitism.

Blissfully, his insult on my addition came in the form of a backhanded compliment: I’m guilty of “serious” and “sensible” political punditry. Praise from Caesar!

But seriously, folks, I think it’s time that we reflect on what Dana Hunter hath wrought with “Carnival of the Elitist Bastards”: in just three editions, Dana’s shot to the veritable top of science blogs readership by gathering the explicit endorsement of one of the community’s most (in)famous members. It’s clear to me that she’s tapped in to a strong undercurrent: intelligent, outspoken individuals upset about the sidelining of intelligence in American society. While a revolution in the blogs does not a revolution on the ground make, it’s certainly a great first step for intellectual allies to turn, recognize each other, shake hands, and start talking, which is what Dana has given us. Thank you, from one concerned citizen to another.

On elitism generally, it’s a telling fact that, while we may finally see a return of intelligence to the White House in 2008, we’ll only see it return upon the wings of popularity. Intelligence itself, alone, just isn’t that damn popular. Gore’s intelligence in 2000 made us “suspicious” of him, as if his extra brainpower just meant more opportunities for mischief (idle brain cells are the devil’s playthings!). This country was built by leaders who politely tricked voters, and themselves, into believing that they were simply humble farmers: now that we’re in a world of telecommunications, where all information is available to everyone at any time, it’s time to disabuse ourselves of that little image pattern, wake up, and realize that America is, was, and must be built upon intellectual capital, not bumbling, empty rhetoric.

As my brilliant girlfriend (like, “could kill you with her mind” brilliant: if you know her, you’ll agree) pointed out, we even like our celebrities dumbed down. Some even become famous just because they’re dumb. After all, why feel inferior listening to a quality singer when Paris Hilton can croon out “Stars Are Blind,” and make us feel good about our shortcomings? Politeness, humility, and the need for self-confidence can’t be allowed to trump the importance of the human quest for knowledge.

That’s why, now more than ever, this election needs to be about intelligence more than experience. We need a President who can make it cool to be smart again, and we need a man (since it is down to two men, now…) who demonstrates the intelligence to deal with an evolving world, rather than the experience to deal with an evolved world. And I think I know who that man is.

Airport Security: Speaking Truth to (Small) Power

The war on terror, and concomittant security increases, have given would-be clubhouse dictators a chance to come into their own as bullying security guards. An example, from the Atlanta airport.

Man in front of me commits the dastardly crime of placing his shoes in the conveyor belt BEFORE his backpack. TSA agent takes the chance to launch into a speech about how Hapless Man’s disorderly conduct threatens other travelers’ schedules: “that’ll hold up the whole airport, sir.” Loosely translated, “allow me to seize this fleeting chance to talk down to you and make your travel experience more demeaning.” Then Hapless Man shows his quality, standing up to the bully: “I don’t need a lecture.”

Big mistake.

Surprisingly – after going through the detector – Hapless Man is pulled away for a surprise inspection. The schoolyard bully wins this round.

Conservapedia and Distrust: the Sad Story of Subtle Subterfuge

By now we’re all familiar with Poe’s Law – the rule that, without a winking smiley or other extrinsic sign of hilarity, it’s impossible to tell the difference between a legitimate creationist’s beliefs, and parody.  Conservapedia has, to the dismay of those few who take it seriously, provided a tempting target to test Poe’s Law, and to test its corollary – the idea that fundamentalism is easy to fake, to destructive effect.

Namely, since the Conservapedia leadership so quickly trusts and promotes creationists to positions of power (and so readily bans non-creationists, as “non-Christians”), a confident web actor can ape creationist views (pun intended) and easily weedle his or her way into the upper echelons of Conservapedia society.  Three times, this saga has three times played out to Schlafly’s dismay (once, twice, thrice), as a parodist/vandal posing as a creationist used the implicit trust emanating from their professions of fundamentalism, and the administrative powers that trust entailed, to wreak havoc on Conservapedia in the wee hours of the morning.

It’s easy to despise these actions as juvenile, puerile, and damaging to the liberal cause, as they potentially reinforce creationist persecution complexes and fears of “lib’ruls” everywhere (one homeschooler/sysop famously told the LA Times, about non-creationists, “they’re out to destroy us” – how sad to prove the paranoia Andy had inculcated into her correct).  And perhaps that’s the right approach.

But, on the other hand, abuse on the part of Conservapedia “vandals” of the implicit trust that flows from the creationist label serves the useful purpose of eroding the conception that theocracy works, and underlines the importance of meritocracy and non-ideological markers of competence in any organization.  In short, it poignantly illustrates the importance of maintaining the church-state divide.  Boorishly, perhaps.  But effectively.

I do not endorse it, though.

The Privileged Planet: Debunking Popular Pseudoscience, and the State of Fundamentalist Scientific Discourse

In Kansas City yesterday, flipping through channels, I chanced upon an FM talk radio station, in the lower band, and stopped a second.  Someone was talking about geology.  Thinking that I’d just found the local NPR station – jackpot! – I stayed tuned.

This was no NPR.  After ten seconds, I heard the word “design” and quickly feared the worst.  Those fears proved true.  This was a Christian fundamentalist talk radio station, the kind of place where, I kid you not, commercials describe televised baseball as “like church, but you can yell,” and where call-in commenters refer to “the evolution’s law of thermodynamics” when discussing astrophysics.  Wow.  That covers the second topic of this post – the state of fundamentalist scientific discourse is… quite poor.  Now on to the first topic.

Being interviewed by the host was, I believe, none other than Guillermo Gonzalez – the man who was denied tenure for “courageously speaking out” about the “scientific theory” of intelligent design.  Guillermo was pumping his latest book, The Privileged Planet (eBook here – please don’t pay).  This book speculates on the odd coincidence that everything in our universe is just right for human life – why, if the charge of the electron were off by even a blip, we’d all explode!  The book’s website goes on to ask other deep questions, like, “is the appearance of the night sky related to our existence?” and “did Copernicus remove us from the center of the cosmos?”  Oh snap.  That’s deep enough to get some beat poetry going.

While I applaud Guillermo & friend, on the one hand, for making science spiritually palatable (that’s a noble goal), and for popularizing some scientific truths (as he argued on the air, the Earth is a “data recorder” in that the Earth’s history is reflected in itself), the argument by awe about how “special” and “lucky” we are to be on such a perfectly suitable planet is unimpressive and logically problematic.  Obviously, if everything weren’t just perfect for human life, we wouldn’t be here to talk about how “weird” and “special” that is.  We shouldn’t look up in the night sky and be shocked to see that everything is just right for life on Earth, since our very existence proves that everything is just right!  We can be thankful that we’re here, and that chance rolled our way on this one out of billions of planets, but we can’t chalk that up to a creator, at least without transgressing beyond the realm of science and entering philosophy.  Science answers the “how,” not the “why” and the “wow.”  And therein lies the last point.

Namely, Guillermo and The Privileged Planet pundits have together managed to prove, yet again, the enduring failure of intelligent design.  Although intelligent design was “created” to be covertly religious, by hitching his design “science” to philosophy (and, ultimately, religion – the name “Christian Research Institute” came up very quickly in the interview), Gonzales et al prove the hollowness of the assertion that ID is nonsectarian, thus dooming any attempt by ID to invade the public sphere.  While intelligent design may find some popularity with the choir, we can find some solace in the fact that it’ll be doomed to be “researched” by only those “scientists” who equate thermodynamics with “the evolution.”

Victory, Loss, and Expectations: Elementary Political Spin

The difference between victory and defeat can, often, turn upon a matter of expectations.  AirTran gave me a particular poignant example of this rule the other day: after departing 40 minutes late from New York LaGuardia, they claimed to be “on time” arriving in Atlanta.  I was shocked… until I realized that the flight time incorporated an expected 30 minutes delay.  AirTran successfully lowered expectations to the point that victory was near inevitable.

But compared with our Fearless Leader, rex imperatorque George W. Bush, AirTran’s minor PR coup is rookie business.  Especially since the expectations surrounding Practically-President-Elect Barack Obama could hardly be higher, we as Democrats and indeed as patriots would be wise to either scale back our expectations to avoid either defeat or disappointment, and regain control of the spin cycle.

You see, positive press can be negative.  In 2004 – and in 2000 – George Bush faced an opponent with many times his own (apparent) intellect, meaning that presidential debates had the potential to, at any moment, turn into a bloodbath. Rather than playing down Bush’s intellectual inadequacies, in the run-up to the debates, Rove accentuated them – we heard, for example, how John Kerry was “the best debater since Cicero” – to the point that, if Bush managed to stand erect in front of Kerry, he would beat the spread and “win,” vaulting easily over the ridiculously low bar he had set for himself.

Nor was this a trick of mere rhetoric: quite apart, redefining expectations to redefine victory is a common thread running throughout the Bush presidency.  In 2004, Bush boasted that his administration had dealt out significantly more Pell Grants, money to lower-income students, than his predecessors.  Yes – because Bush had watered down the value of each individual Pell Grant.  And while in 2002, we were promised swift victory in Iraq, and assured that we would be “greeted as liberators,” today we’re happy that American soldiers have managed to act as a human buffer between violent sectarian groups.

Bush managed to meet expectations by lowering them far enough.  We let him do that.  And we’ve also let our expectations of an Obama Presidency soar to near unfulfillable levels.  As the general election drags on, Obama would be wise to reality-check himself down to earth, just so he can continue to live up to the hype.

Thanks to Matt for a spectacular guest post.  Juxtaposition indeed.  And sorry – dear reader(s) – that posting will be erratic over the next few days, on account of the wedding of two of our best friends.  Happy wedding to you too!

Obama Cancels Troop Visit; the GOP Spin, and Why It’s Wrong

In what just feels like a planned PR coup, the Pentagon recommended that president candidate Barack Obama abandon a planned trip to America’s wounded soldiers in Iraq, while right wing pundits – was anyone else listening to Hannity today? – blasted Obama for acceding to the Pentagon’s request.

Aside from the fact that Obama’s failure is of the Republican’s own creation, meaning the worst he can be accused of is waltzing into a GOP trap, let’s not forget who got those soldiers wounded in the first place, by starting a poorly planned war, under-armoring our soldiers, and giving them inadequate medical care.  If it weren’t for Bush, and the Republican policies of irresponsibility and failure, there would be no wounded soldiers for Obama to visit and cancel at a political request.

Support our troops.  Vote Obama in ’08.

Dead babies, dead cows, and an odd juxtaposition

Ames is off gallivanting around Kansas City, so here with your regularly scheduled Friday post is guest blogger Matt Fairchild.

Two very different things catch my attention every day as I drive to work. The first is a daily outdoor gathering of local Christians. The second is a local art gallery owned by a prominent Dallas couple.

Hey, let’s play the Stereotype Game!

If I told you that the art gallery shows edgy, often subversive artwork by Young British Artists, would that change your expectation as you drive by? How about if I mention that the owners are gay?

As for the Christians, the group usually consists of two diminutive, elderly ladies, bowing their heads in prayer. On occasional Fridays, the group expands into a throng of teenagers, young and energetic and excited to help make the world a better place.

I ask you, gentle reader: which one of these Dallas, Texas fixtures would you expect to offend you by forcing you to look at a grotesque image?

The answer is group number 2, the docile Christians. They’re protesting an abortion clinic.

(Warning: graphic images after the jump.)
Continue reading »

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: the Evolution of the Dialogue on Gay Rights in Mainstream America

I’d like to begin instituting a laudable practice already carried out by our friend, Progressive Conservative of “The Big Stick”: elevating particularly insightful comments to the frontpage.  On that note, I’ve wanted for some time to comment on the wisdom of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy – while maintaining combat unit cohesion is laudable, I’m sure, does it need to come at the cost of expelling highly needed soldiers, just because of their sexual orientation?  And must we let the lowest common denominator of American society hold our military’s moral standards hostage to their backwards beliefs?  I think, no.

But I wouldn’t have come up with those well-focused arguments without Trey’s insights, below:

I have found an interesting change in the way that people advocate against gay rights lately.  It seems that in our society, it is no longer acceptable to base one’s argument on the idea that gays and lesbians are immoral or inferior.  In a recent hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, the witness insisting that gays should not be allowed to serve in the armed forces predicated his entire argument on the worries of losing “troop morale and cohesion”.  When pressed by a Democratic member whether he personally thought being gay was immoral or wrong, the witness stated that no, he did not.  In fact, he did not believe that being gay was a choice.  It may be that this was his honest answer, and it may be that he realized that his true thoughts on the matter were unacceptable, but in any event his argument quickly broke down.  The Democratic member quickly retorted that there was a simple fix for “morale and cohesion” and that the military should not be basing its policies on the lowest common denominator of human thought.

I think in general, people now have to now base their arguments on “comfort” and “family”, and these arguments simply will no longer hold water.  To take their beliefs further would bring them precariously close to the bigotry of generations past, and these anti gay advocates do not want to do that in the public forum.  Knock on wood, the day of equality may soon be before us.

Right on, Trey! I’m surprised, honestly, that the efficacy and morality of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is being so openly questioned (recall the Democratic primaries), but I’m glad to see it, and it may indeed be the shape of things to come.

McCain’s Campaign Reduced to Whining: Straight Talk Redux

It’s no surprise that John McCain is getting frozen out of the news cycle, especially as Barack Obama’s overseas trip takes a turn for the presidential.  The Democrats have mounted an astonishingly successful campaign of denial, as headliner event after headliner event combine to steal the show from the media’s former darling. Even the extended primary season functioned to keep media attention (for better or worse) on the Democrats, while McCain struggled to keep listeners awake in front of a green screen.

McCain’s reaction, though, has been disappointing to say the least: instead of reinventing himself, or coming up with exciting policies to invigorate a disenchanted America, McCain has decided to complain about the media’s love affair with Obama.  That’ll show them!  For a candidate who makes his name on being more substance than spin, this is a wholly unsatisfying talking point, to say the least.

And a short-sighted one, too.  For years now, McCain has been a media darling, enjoying preferential treatment and respect, privileges that largely continue: the media still forgive plenty of McCain’s gaffes:

For McCain to complain when the same forgiveness is shown his opponent may be political, but it’s also childish, and it’s not rational.  The same goes for the allegation of “censorship” being leveled against the New York Times, which refused to print McCain’s response to an Obama editorial.  To cry “censorship” assumes an unrestricted right of reply – something out of the Fairness Doctrine days, rules that I thought conservatives opposed – and reduces again to spin and whining.

To paraphrase & borrow again from Denialism Blog, let’s not mistake whining for debate.  But how telling that whining appears to be the only thing McCain has left to say for himself.