Writings on the wall

I do think it’s hilarious just how scared the conservatives are of Obama. I don’t think they’re scared of him because he’s black, or because he might beat McCain. I think they’re scared of him because he’s got principles. Genuinely.

And for people whose principles are slogans designed to provide cover for selfishness, entitlement, and laziness that one thing is terrifying.

Why?

I’ve argued in favour of Nader in the past. The logic goes like this:

1. The US political system is broken. The Democrats and the Republicans have things sown up between them so long as there is not preferential voting. They do not need to represent the wishes of the American people, they just need to make sure they get more votes than the other party. In the case of the Republicans this usually seems to mean convincing the electorate (against all the evidence) that they’re the “party of fiscal responsibility”, or that ignorance is strength, or most of all that war is peace.

   The Democrats, who in another country would be a party of the centre-left, chase the Republicans over to the right in an effort to poach their voters. They get in bed with big business and try to be “neocon-lite”. After all, they have nothing to lose. The voters are picking between bad and worse and the Democrats bet they won’t choose “worse”.

   In a country where five corporations control the majority of the media, it’s not easy to rock the boat. This by itself would drag the Democrats to the right, but in countries where representative democracy is a little more democratic, they’d nevertheless have to keep the left on side simply to prevent minor parties eroding their support base. In the US no such incentive exists. The main erosion of support is to voters so disaffected they stay home.

2. There’s actually no solution to this. Citizens can lobby the Democrats to change their policies, but it’s in the interests of the party to pay lip service to social needs while keeping the media and the corporations as friendly as possible. Getting the media offside could result in truly disastrous press bias. The corporations are not one monolith, but just the same party funding is the basis of any election and every congressional constituency is vulnerable if there is a perception that jobs are at risk. Corporate capitalism is all about manipulating influence to gain competitive advantage. Elections depend on money. It’s a natural match.

3. Or rather, there are two possible solutions and neither is very likely. The first is represented by Nader and the second is prevented by Nader, so I’ll come to it under why not?.

   Nader can’t win. He’s up against the electoral system, the media barons, the corporations, and the Democratic party itself. What he can do is take votes away from the Democratic party. If he does this effectively it’s because he’s been able to gain support for his vision of a non-corporatist, socially compassionate, ecologically sustainable America.

   The cost is Republican presidency, in the short term. In the long term, if he does it well, he forces the Democrats to adopt many of his policies to stop the rot. Now there’s a chance this prevents the Democrats from winning office. Perhaps the power of the media is such that a “green Democrat” is unelectable. But the voters have the final say, so long as Diebold doesn’t become too common and Jeb keeps his fingers out of the Supreme Court. In any case nothing is possible if the average voter doesn’t start looking for a little truth beyond the propaganda machine.

   So I could imagine a situation where the Democrats were forced to really become a center-left party instead of right-centrist the way they are now. But it would take time and it would rely on the Republicans disgracing themselves while the Democrats rebuilt. I think we can always rely on the Republicans to disgrace themselves, I’m just not so sure we can rely on the public to notice.

In a nutshell that’s my pro-Nader argument. We have to keep the Democrats honest, and it may be worth the short term pain in order to do so.

Why not?

This is easier. The Democratic party can reform itself from within.

There has always been the possibility that good men and women would reach office on a Democratic ticket and push against the tide of money men and strategists to create policies which meant something. By doing so they could draw socially conscious caring people in to the party and displace the time servers and the vested interests. A revitalised party would make some headway against the media and Washington’s corporate corruption.

Obama is no lefty. He doesn’t even have the politics of Kucinich. But he does have the vision and the charisma to begin a new direction. I also think he hides his true agenda under a bushel, so as to avoid scaring people. He could make a difference.

I want to give Obama a chance, and I want to do so with a united progressive voice, not splitting it with Nader. I’d love to see Nader campaigning, but campainging against the ills of the Republican mindset rather than campaigning against Obama. [By the way if it were Clinton I'd have a quite different view. I think she represents the worst of the corporatists in progressive clothing who have so damaged the Dems].

So I’m a Nader supporter, but I’m saying don’t do this, Ralph.

Newspapers in Denmark have recently reprinted the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad which caused controversy and violent protest in 2005 when they were published in Jyllands-Posten. This came about after the arrest on Tuesday of three people on charges of plotting to kill the creator of the cartoon, Kurt Wesergaard. One of the three was later released, but two - both Tunisian citizens who had lived in Denmark for many years - were deported. The newspapers reprinting the cartoon said that they chose to do so in order to take a stand against self-censorship. In other words they wished to show that intimidation could not succeed in silencing them.

This highlights a complex ethical situation in regard of human rights. Hate speech is illegal in much of Europe and in fact in much of the world, and yet free speech is an essential part of any democracy. Are those two things compatible? Where is the border between them?

Certainly I believe I have the right to say what I want about my culture’s religion, Christianity. I might even make fun of it, simply for my own amusement, but I would not do that if I thought it would cause serious offence. That’s simple courtesy. And some people are more likely to be hurt than others. If I meet your deeply religious grandmother I’m no more going to say something mean about Christ than I am going to tell her that her hat is ugly. I don’t think this constitutes any limitation on my freedom of speech.

Legislating against hate speech is something fraught with difficulty, however, because you are really making a law against intent. A swastika in a historian’s book is quite different than one painted on a synagogue, or found (reversed) on the facade of a Hindu temple. In fact we do legislate intent all the time; it is the difference between manslaughter and murder, for example. When the intent is to intimidate, harass, or incite violence against a particular group then it becomes, in many places, illegal.

So, the original publication of a cartoon Muhammad with a turban which looked like a bomb deeply offended a large number of Muslims around the world. Perhaps Islamic religious leaders are partly to blame for inciting the violence which followed, causing around a hundred deaths. For that reason it was discourteous and probably also unwise. Was the publication necessary to advance free speech? I don’t personally see how. Was it intended to intimidate or incite violence against the Muslim population? I’m not sure, but it can’t have helped.

Now, when a possible plot is discovered against the cartoonist, newspapers react to what they see as an attempt to intimidate them into restricting what they will publish. They show their defiance by once again provoking violence. Is this an effective blow for freedom of the press? What does it really achieve? What are the costs in violent reprisals and in increasing racial tensions in Europe?

Personally I’m strongly against any legal limits on freedom of speech. I think the laws which already exist to prohibit threatening behaviour, incitement to violence, and so on should be enough. But although there should be no legal sanction, I think that individuals or media which choose to say things which are offensive, provocative, or likely to increase divisions and hatred within the community are acting in a very unethical way.

Using free speech to cause harm is something which should only be done if there’s a very good reason. There should be no other way. Abusing this most necessary privilege endangers this most basic of our human rights.

Update:

Please take a look at Gideon’s comment here, and the contrast between these cartoons and Rushdie’s book on the one hand and Piss Christ on the other. When I wrote this I was trying to think of good examples to bring a range of worthwhile and non-worthwhile free speech cases to the table, but wasn’t able to do so.

In the air and space

I’m too far apart

Bright like a contrail
that drifts in perfection

But down inside my sadness
it’s dark
it’s cool and humid

I remember anguish and the hard road

My heart swells
at your touch
sweat

Your blue eyes are full of light
and joy

Between the earth and sky
lightning strikes

I have always loved you

There’s a natural tendency to idolize those we admire. If you’ve ever watched a child’s attention being drawn by any slightly older child in the vicinity you’ve seen the beginnings of it. Learning by emulation is built in. We quite unconsciously study those whom we think have strategies and attributes which are successful.

It does lead to hero worship. We get people out of proportion, and then they don’t live up to our expectations. This all came into my head because of Obama, for better or for worse, but there’s something deeper here, to do with acceptance and forgiveness of ourselves.

That way of putting people on a pedestal is not real. Part of the seduction of it is that if I make someone into an image, a cypher for what I want to be (or what epitomises “what a leader should be” or whatever), then I’m denying the essence of their humanity. And the reason that’s attractive is that it keeps me blind to the parts of myself I don’t want to examine.

The truth is that it’s our flaws, our humanity, our hangups and warts and all that make us beautiful - or rather the struggle to overcome those flaws and love in spite of them. So acceptance and compassion, starting inward, can let us truly love those around us without falling into the trap of worshipping their graven image. The real flesh and blood is so much warmer than the white marble or the gold.

Best of all, such true love of who the person is and what they need and care about has the effect of allowing them to be who they are. It gives them freedom rather than the chains of expectation. It encourages growth, and before you know it people are blossoming everywhere into something amazing. Something which makes mistakes, feels and causes pain, needs and shrieks and gets angry and suffers in its attempts to love and give. But something which not despite but because of that is deeply wonderful.

It does start within. Don’t cover over the things which make you wince. They hurt - so kiss them, show them air and sunlight. Let them heal. Each heart has its share of pain and shame and harm, and can be with acceptance stronger for that. More real. More warm. More whole. Less afraid and hard and closed.

I want to tell you that it’s not a struggle. Don’t force it, if you let it then it will happen. But most of all I want to say: I love you.