Monday, November 17, 2008

I Know But Do Not Feel

I was born in 1961 in the Garden State, only a few miles from New York City. My mother was born in Manhattan; my father was a first-generation American born in north Jersey.

For the first 7 years of my life I traveled in and around such places as Paterson (the town outside Manhattan most closely connected to 9/11), Newark, and Jersey City. Readers familiar with these cities know their racial composition well; I understood the idea of "projects" from travelling to my aunt's apartment in Jersey City and our forays around the Bronx (where my mother had been raised). Most of my father's extended family, after a deep and profound tragedy fell on the Gnades eight weeks before my birth, moved to New Hampshire soon after I was born; my immediate family would enjoy summer holidays in New Hampshire's Monadnock region until my father moved us all to that fine enclave 40 years ago this coming Wednesday.

I share all this as a prelude to a confession, and that confession is that while I intellectually understand the historical dimension of the election of Barack Obama to the White House -- he being an African-American -- his election did not feel historical in the least. Of course, I am talking as a 47-year-old white man raised mostly in snow-white southwestern New Hampshire. I am too young to have witnessed racial discrimination in any meaningful way, and I was raised, largely, in a culture and in a family at war with racism. I came of age, after all, in the 1960s and 1970s, where my cohort was trained by family and school, and even TV and Hollywood, not to see skin color as ontologically important. Perhaps my favorite childhood novels were Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn; I am glad to say that I was one of Twain's readers (he used to summer in my New Hampshire home town) who never once felt that he hated dear, sweet Jim, the runaway slave.

I recall the countless black figures I adored, and even imitated, as a child and teenager. On TV, who did not like Linc from "The Mod Squad"? Who didn't howl at the antics of Flip Wilson, Nipsy Russell, Redd Foxx, or Sammy Davis, Jr. (I loved Wilson, Foxx and Davis)? Who didn't love the tales of Bill Cosby's "Fat Albert" or Cosby's role on "I Spy?" What boy did not find Teresa Graves fantastically desirable on "Laugh-In" or the short-lived "Get Christy Love"?

I remember clearly claiming as a youngster that Sidney Poitier was my favorite actor, as he embodied (cinematically, at least) the sort of conviction and resolve that were quintessentially masculine and heroic.

And what child was not moved by the voice of Martin Luther King; who can forget the pall over the land, and in one's own living room, when that great man was killed?

My dad was an ardent boxing fan; I was weened, as were countless American boys, on Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Joe Frasier, and the sculpted Ken Norton (and this skinny boy thought Sugar Ray Leonard the very epitome of stealth and swiftness). Many of my playmates would scream out the names of favorite basketball players -- claiming to be their sudden incarnations on the playground -- as they nailed a shot from downtown. Lew Al Cinder (Kareem Abdul Jabbar), Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and a young Dr. J: these were the names young white boys were gleefully and proudly invoking as their patron saints. I wanted to play first base in Little League -- and I did -- because I wanted to be the Red Sox' George Scott; I wanted to be a centerfielder (and I was) because of Willie Mays; I wanted to be Willie Stargell because he could play both fields. I remember watching through tears when Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's longstanding home run record; I sat with my father, who was also profoundly moved.

I recall having an Arthur Ashe tennis racket (I confess that I may have stolen it); I remember telling friends that I wanted to be the next Mercury Morris (and boy, am I glad to learn that not all dreams should come true). And though Pelé was Brazilian, he looked every bit as African as any white American boys could know, as they blithely invoked his name when attempting a bicycle kick on the backyard pitch.

As some of us found ourselves drawn toward the counter-culture, many of my cohort (myself included) adored the virtuosity of Jimi Hendrix, naming him, with all due air-guitar fanfare and much pot smoke-enshrouded authority, the "Greatest Guitarist in the World"; my sister wanted to be Diana Ross.

My generation has been raised as witnesses to black mayors, governors, senators, and Supreme Court justices. I've seen a black astronaut; I've seen a black secretary of state. I've seen Nelson Mandela hailed as president of the world; I've seen black bishops speak on truth and reconciliation. Many of us have read Hughes and Baldwin and Morrison and Walker; we're the grade-schoolers who huddled around TVs to watch "Roots."

Mine is the generation to first hear (as we all did in high school in the late 1970s and college in the early 1980s) the power of rap; we are, really, the first hip-hop generation.

In short, I am a child of arguably the first generation taught, from birth, to be blind of color. We're the Magic Johnson-Larry Bird children; we're the siblings of Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Arsenio Hall, and yes, Barack Obama.

Hence, it was not an emotionally charged moment for me to witness Barack Obama's ascendancy to the White House. I am not saying it was anti-climactic, but merely non-climactic. It was not at all unexpected: many of us are incredibly used to seeing African-Americans in positions attained by excellence and dignity. An African-American president almost feels like it has been done before: the idea, followed by the reality, is not particularly surprising.

Maybe I would feel differently if Barack Obama's story was not what it is. His is not even remotely typical of the American black experience; there is nary a hint of his life's narrative wherein we hear of his being oppressed and trammeled for his race. Perhaps had he been a true descendant of African-American slaves; perhaps if his story began with his maternal and paternal great-grandparents being branded by hot irons in the deep cotton south; perhaps if his struggle was from roots planted in the deepest pain of American segregation; perhaps had he finished college at Howard University, I might have felt differently the night of November 4, 2008. I cannot know.

But I do know that I can recognize what his achievement -- which is also the country's achievement -- means to many of my older fellow citizens who can still feel the pain of racism in America. I also know that it is foolish of me to believe my northern exposure to race is identical with my southern and black peers'; Condoleezza Rice knows first-hand the pain of race in a way I cannot, though we are nearly the same age, separated by only 7 years. In the end, I find that I can intellectually appreciate what Barack Obama's story means to many of my fellow citizens, but I cannot find within me any emotional comparison to the relief and gratitude they are so clearly experiencing. I have to remind myself that Barack Obama is a "person of color"; to me, and my several peers to whom I've spoken about this, the election of Barack Obama to the White House feels utterly familiar. A black man? Who really noticed?

In a very real way, I am a composite of a human being: I am Twain's Jim; I am Flip and Linc and Jimi and Michael and Magic; I am Tiger (I think of him EVERY time I tee up, which is probably a big mistake); I am Willie Mays and Langston Hughes and Martin Luther King and Arthur Ashe and Carl Lewis and Sidney Poitier and Alice Walker and Kunta Kinte. I hurdled as Edwin Moses or O.J. Simpson over the hedge in my neighbor's yard; I threw to home as Reggie Smith. I am a mix, a mongrel, a pure American mutt.

Barack Obama. His story is history. But it is not just his, and when you truly know your own, none of it is really much of a surprise.

Peace.

BG

Saturday, November 15, 2008

A Readjustment Of Priorities

Yes, I have been absent from this little salon for several days now. Forgive me if things smell a little musty.

I have neglected several very pressing projects, and now I must attend to them. I will post as often as I can responsibly do so. Don't think I've slipped into dementia or depression; I am not forming a militia to mount a strong defense against a new political regime. I am simply trying to be effective with the little time we all have.

What do I feel in the wake of the elections? Obviously, I recognize that no one here has asked me such a fine question (though one of you did ask me in an email). My answer is that I feel, if one can call it that, a sense of blandness: I sense blandness, I sense insipidity. I feel like I've passed through a rococo gate only to step onto a gravel yard strewn with pre-cast cement figurines. I've followed a rabbit into a hole marked the "future" and I've discovered 1992. I've reached the rainbow's end and found a pot of Frank Rich columns. I've been seated at Le Petite Maison only to be served cold french fries dipped in canned Béarnaise sauce.

In other words, I don't feel all that much.

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Crazy Prediction, Several Steps Right

I am completely over-stepping my bounds. I've no qualifications as an augur, a prognosticator. But I will defy those bounds and make a bold leap over all restraints: Barack Obama is going to shift rightward almost immediately. He has to.

If Mr. Obama intends on winning the 2012 election, he has to move to the right now. He knows that just a small swing in the electorate, something along the lines of ≤3% of the popular vote, may put him back doing community organizing in Chicago. So he has to go to the right; he has to move right to ensure that the independents and even the Republicans who voted for him do not leave him in four years.

Of course, as is his habit, he will be campaigning for the office of president in 2012 almost immediately.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, will swing WAY left. She sees Mr. Obama's dilemma and she's got to jump on it. She will hassle Mr. Obama from the far left like there is no tomorrow: he'll sound like Jesse Helms whenever she speaks about him.

Just a guess. But it's also a warning: Don't be seduced. His shift will disappear the second he gets reelected. In 2012, he'll go zooming leftward, for then he'll have nothing to lose.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

The Obama Cabinet: Who's Taking?

I imagine that every thinking person who voted for Barack Obama expects him to choose for his cabinet the very best, brightest and ablest minds this country has to offer. Surely he himself has been described as leader par excellence. One might assume, then, that he will make great choices: the cabinet will be stellar.

But think about this for one moment. Senator Joe Biden said over two weeks ago that Barack Obama, when elected, would be seriously tested by a major international event; the event would be generated specifically to challenge the mettle of such a young leader. So I ask you: If you were among the best political minds in the country today, would you accept a position on the Barack Obama cabinet or in his administration? "Mark my words," said Mr. Biden. In other words, Biden promised a major international attack of some sort on Barack Obama and this country. Is this the situation you can see the most able and ambitious folks leaping into as agents of change?

Or am I being too cynical here? Am I so jaded that I believe most politicians choose their paths for personal gain, for improving their station in life and in the eyes of the electorate? Do I believe that the top-tier minds will opt out, leaving Barack Obama with a second- and even third-tier administration? Sadly, I think I am.

And if you as a possible cabinet member really believed that the current economic crisis is the "worst economic crisis facing this nation since the Great Depression", how quickly would you raise your hand so your name can be listed among those who attempted to fix what they may actually make worse?

In short, who would even want to be president right now? This is the first time in forty years we have had a transition of power during a war; that alone is a daunting challenge. But if the financial crisis is real and not manufactured (as some have suggested), and if there is an imminent international event aimed directly at upsetting the Obama regime, do we really expect the best in class to step forward and volunteer their help?

©2008. All Rights Reserved.


Racial Disharmony Already?

There are a couple of things that need to be mentioned in light of the historic election of Barack Obama. One I've briefly raised in a few questions I posed here yesterday: What will become of racial unity in the United States if Barack Obama is a terrible president? What if his cabinet is composed of white men and women? What if he governs too conservatively, or too liberally?

Last night, African-American journalist Juan Williams of NPR said the following on Fox News about the appointment of Rahm Emanuel (from Chicago and former Clinton aide) as Obama's chief-of-staff:
Let me just say that there's also two other lines of criticism I heard today. One is Chicago is now running the world because Emanuel, as you know, is another Chicago man and close to Richard Daley. And so all of a sudden it looks like that.

And the other one is the black caucus thing — 'well, gee, we thought that was the kind of job that might have gone to a prominent black politician.'
[italics added for emphasis]
Trouble already? Just the sort of change people have been hoping for, I guess.

In other news about race, I am sure you've heard that measures to ban gay marriage in several states passed on Tuesday. But what a civil rights conundrum they represent! Here we have a historic election of a black man to the White House; my guess is that the majority of gay rights advocates voted for Barack Obama. Surely the voter breakdowns show that African-Americans overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama; I think I heard that over 95% of blacks voted for him.

Alas, alack, what is this? The vast majority of black voters voted against gay marriage. That's right: African-Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. Even whites were evenly split (relatively) on this; but minorities (Hispanics also opposed gay marriage) apparently believe in the traditional view, that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, here we have on the one hand a black minority with a history of being profoundly oppressed voting for an African-American liberal who has stated he opposes gay marriage; while on the other, we have gays and lesbians, who have compared their struggles to that of black slaves, finding themselves shut out of marriage by the descendants and relatives of those very slaves; the very people who agreed with them about the transcendent and post-racial candidacy of Barack Obama.

Unity? I guess. But it's a strange unity, to say the least.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Big & Bold Predictions

During election night, as I was writing a post here around 8:15 pm, I heard a tone indicating I had received an email. I quickly took a look.

What I received was a headline from a news organization. I must say I was taken aback by the derring-do of the prognostication it was announcing: "Barack Obama Projected to Win Vermont."

Let me just say that I am sure TV and other media outlets feel good about spending big money on pollsters and professional prognosticators. But let me save them all a few dollars:

Barack Obama Projected to Win Vermont in 2012; also Massachusetts, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California, Wisconsin, and Hawaii

also

Vermont & Massachusetts Sign New Charter: In Perpetuity, All Electoral College Delegates Immediately Belong To Democratic Nominee...No Matter What

There. Save some money. Thank me in four years.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Make It While You Can

If I am not mistaken, yesterday (and today?) was the single biggest drop (nearly 500 points in one day; over 900 points in two) in the stock market in the history of the stock market...the day after the election of a new president. I may also have this wrong: sometimes the stock market has actually increased in value the day after the election of a president.

News outlets are telling us that it all has to do with dire economic news, which seems rather tautological: Investors are selling because the economy is struggling. Such analysis is not only banal but stupid: it is the news of the obvious. But those same outlets won't note that yesterday was also a history-making day for the market; the media don't want you to note the correlation.

Of course, they don't mind peddling all kinds of correlations, particularly those that work to reinforce propaganda.

I wonder how many investors will be playing the stock market for all its worth till the end of the year solely to avoid the promised increases in capital gains and dividends taxes under the next administration. It seems likely, or so I feel, that they've actually been playing this game quite intensely since somewhere around September 15.

Or, perhaps, as a Democrat who voted for Barack Obama told me at lunch this afternoon (I am not making this up), perhaps the shrewdest Democratic investors are manipulating the market solely to make the next administration look every bit like a savior.

Well, if an avid Obama supporter can think such things (this very guy shouted at me in the same café four years ago because he heard I was a "Republican"), then anything seems possible.

Peace.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.


Lightheaded

"Be anxious for nothing."

I have a prediction. It is entirely speculative. I base it on nothing but thin air.

America's conservative churches are going to see a steady, if not sudden, increase in membership over the next several years. Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, unaffiliated, evangelical, Church of Christ, Anglican, it matters not. Attendance will increase, and the increase will be dramatic. The Catholic Church might even see significant growth; it will only do so if it reinvigorates its teaching and preaching traditions.

The Episcopal Church will see maybe a momentary gain; but it will, along with the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Society, see a level or downward trend.

Churches that are distinctly, wisely and dynamically walking against the current of the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, will flourish. (But only if they are distinct, dynamic and wise.)

Thus sprach the thin air.



Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Transformational; A Unifier

The polls are closed in New Hampshire. The last one closed less than 15 minutes ago.

I've been thinking all day about Barack Obama as a unifier, as a "transformational figure." And he will be, if elected, at least insofar as race is concerned. But this is to state the obvious.

I want to ask a few questions; these questions are offered not as an attempt to influence anyone's vote, as the polls are closed at this writing (at least on the east coast). They are strictly designed to anticipate potential scenarios should Barack Obama win tonight.

If this election cycle has been ultimately defined by race, meaning that Americans were eager to vote for the first-ever African-American nominee for president, then I am wondering what race relations might look like in the future under the following conditions:
  • What will become of racial unity in America if President Obama is a terrible president?
  • What will become of racial unity in America if President Obama governs too conservatively? too liberally?
  • What will become of racial unity in America if President Obama has a cabinet mostly consisting of white members?
  • What will become of racial unity in America if President Obama has a cabinet that is almost entirely African-American, and he and the cabinet perform poorly?
You and I need not answer these questions. We need not speculate. But these are exact samples of the finite number of possibilities of an Obama presidency. My sense is that if any of these comes to pass, racial unity could quickly dissolve. I think that a poorly performing (really poorly) President Obama could create a racial firestorm. I think we could hear some of the most incendiary racial speech this nation has heard in more than 60 years; such speech would come from both sides of the racial divide. I am not hoping for this; I am not saying this WILL happen; I am hoping it does NOT happen. I am merely saying that a Barack Obama presidency does not necessarily mean what many of us have thought it might mean.

My sense, then, is that Barack Obama may be an overly-cautious president, trying too hard to avoid the many pitfalls that his particular situation presents. He may even be paralyzed by his fear of offending those who have pinned such high hopes -- particularly about race -- on his leadership. One misstep could fracture any current unity he may have forged.

I will not explore this too fully. My interest is in the possible outcomes; I accept that there are others that I have not considered here. Let me mention at least one: A great and effective Barack Obama presidency will be a fantastic boost for racial unity in this country. That seems a priori true.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.


Monday, November 03, 2008

Well, It's Over

Thus endeth the great campaign.

The narratives have all been set. These were not set in order to secure a victory. They've been created to de-legitimize whoever wins. If McCain wins, he stole the election, America is racist, voters were intimidated and suppressed at the polls, and fear rules again. If Obama wins, he is not a natural-born citizen, the election was stolen, fraud has been perpetrated, Marxism prevails, white guilt falls down to pressure groups, and he bought the White House.

If Obama loses, he will gain wide international support. He will become a hero, the victim of racist America. The world will seek to make him the new president of the UN. He will fetch tremendous speaking fees.

If Obama wins, he will gain wide international support. He will become a hero, the victor over racist America. The world will seek to make him the new president (in eight years) of the UN. He will later fetch tremendous speaking fees.

If McCain loses, he will quietly disappear into the Senate, and then just quietly retire.

On election night, one man will have a small party of about 2,000 people in his home state.

The other man has already disbursed 60,000 tickets for his party; some have wondered if a million people might show up; city fees alone are expected to exceed $1 million.

I will let you decide which candidate is hosting which party.

The times are tough.

Dear Sen. Obama: Why I Can't Vote For You -- Reason #1: You Have Not Denounced Idolatry

Dear Senator,

Blessings -- again -- to you. I recognize that tonight is a difficult one for you: you may be on the very threshold of something new and wonderful, but the death of your grandmother must surely sting. I bid you well.

I know I have plodded along in five other essays outlining why I cannot vote for you. Forgive me. I do have my reasons, not least of which is that I want to demonstrate that I disagree with you not because of who you are (I actually like you a great deal). Rather, I disagree with you on the issues, the philosophical issues, that are before us. Our disagreement is really about ideas, and ideals.

Sir, I know you call yourself a Christian. I am not here to divine whether that is true. I know you even said to Christianity Today that you "believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ." I recall hearing you talk about Reverend Wright leading you to faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. I understand that sort of language; I, too, accept the truths of the ancient creeds.

But here's my issue, sir, and perhaps someday you and I shall have a chance to discuss this face to face. My issue is with the clearly messianic language you and your supporters are using in this campaign. My issue is with your use of New Testament passages to ground your economic plans. Perhaps I have this wrong, perhaps I should be saying my "issues," for I obviously have more than one.

Let me ask you: When you tell us that America's grave sin is that it has forgotten Jesus' teaching that "whatsoever you do to the least of My brethren you do also to Me," are you under the impression that Jesus is talking to the American secular and civil state? I don't see how you can be, but I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. But how can I be? I heard what you said, and it was clear: you've even talked about the Sermon on the Mount being normative and prescriptive for American culture; I've also heard you urge Americans to remember that we are to be "our brother's keeper." Why would you do this? Are you sure you should be planning on leading this country by Christian principles?

And what, pray tell, has become of the Democrats' many fears about right-wing theocracies? Egads, Senator Obama, you're perhaps the most theocratic-sounding candidate of my lifetime. You make Pat Robertson sound like a rather viable candidate: you've said things on the campaign trail that are every bit as "religious right" as his many campaign statements. Somehow, however, you've not been vilified by the media or your party for such declamations. You are free to quote the Bible from the podium any time you wish. But what place does the Bible have in forging the policies of the secular state?

For the life of me, Senator, I particularly do not know how you can for one minute stand the idolatry happening before your very eyes. Your supporters have deified you, and all you are is a mere candidate for president. There is nothing divine about you; you are not the messiah. And yet you somehow reconcile your claims that Jesus is Lord with letting others treat you as if you were a lord yourself. How do you do that? And haven't you heard that the Christian's "Great Commission" given by your Lord Jesus Christ is to go out into the world and tell others that He -- not you or the state or the nations united, not peace or prosperity or fair taxes -- that He, Jesus Christ, is the only hope for each and every human soul? How is it that you have not asked people to tear up those signs bearing your likeness under which are inscribed "hope," and "progress," and "change", when you, by your own faith proclamation, cannot EVER be hope? And even if you are a mere messenger of hope, surely you know that any message of hope that is not rooted in and centered on Christ Himself is not hope at all, but an idol?

I wonder why when Louis Farrakhan actually called you the messiah I did not hear from you, shouting from the very rooftops, your denunciations of such blasphemy. I know Mr. Farrakhan has been honored by your own church and its pastor; I know you have denounced both in a variety of ways. But what I have not heard is you stand up and defend the Messiah you said saved you. How is it that you would not every day denounce these sorts of appellations, these sorts of idolatrous blasphemies of the One Lord into Whom you have been baptized?

In short, Senator, your weakness at denouncing these sorts of remarks; your tepid response to the thousands of people who have elevated you to a position that you know is not yours to hold, actually frightens me. Why this silence and complicity from you, a fallen man who claims to know the one true and only Messiah?

I could hear and see this idolatry early on in your campaign; I blogged about it long before this worship of your person was well-known. I am not claiming that I was anywhere near first to notice, I am simply pointing out that you have permitted a cult of personality to be formed around you like no one I've ever seen in American politics, and somehow you have let your Christian faith accept what is not yours to accept.

For that reason alone, sir, I cannot vote for you.

Lastly, let me note that one could make the case God has raised you up to be a transformative character in America. Of course, you know all too well that those whom God has raised to play a mighty role are often prone to fall, and fall terribly. Many a good man turns his back on God, pride eating away all sense of gratitude and humilty that remain in him. Let it be said that God has raised you up, that God is leading the way and you are the banner of His new direction (Christian homosexual activists have argued that the Holy Spirit is indeed changing what it means to be a married human being, among other things). But haven't we heard others say this about themselves, too? Didn't George W. Bush get lambasted and berated by your own party for believing that God was at work in him?

How then, dear Senator, is it possible that your party has suddenly accepted that God and you are somehow one in purpose?

In the end, Senator Obama, you may be a Christian, and I certainly believe you are, but I have no idea what sort of Christianity you embrace, as you seem utterly indifferent to the high place you've allowed people to place you. But the Lord I've known in the quiet and simple and tragic moments of my life, has told me that such a high place is already taken.

Jesus the Christ, born of Mary the Virgin in the town of Bethlehem, has been raised to the Highest Place where idols are not welcome. He is the Chief Cornerstone on which all false gods are shattered. He Alone is Progress and Change and Hope. He is the Uniter.

Jesus the Christ, God Incarnate.

"In the beginning was the Word," and the Word was not any one of us.

Peace to you.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.




I Am Sorry For Your Loss

It is tough losing a loved one. I can't imagine losing one on the very eve of such a momentous day. I pray, Senator Obama, that your grief will be sweetened by the profound mutual affection you and your grandmother shared, and by your many wonderful memories.

Peace to you, and all comfort.

Bill Gnade

Dear Sen. Obama: Why I Can't Vote For You -- Reason #2: I Opposed The Iraq War, But Not Like You

Dear Senator,

I bid you peace.

You and I are nearly the very same age; I am your junior by only a few weeks. So, like you, I know the sort of military and international anxieties American youths felt growing up in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, I may even understand them better than you, since I did not live abroad, as you did, for any of my childhood.

With that said, you and I both opposed the Iraq War. I surely did. But you and I were against it in two very different ways.

In 2003, when the Iraq "War" began, you were a mere state senator in Illinois, which means you were essentially no closer to understanding the conflict than the average citizen, and I am an average citizen (actually, I am a below-average citizen). My opposition to the conflict was rooted in Just War Theory, latent Christian pacifistic ideals to which I held, and the belief that the Islamic terrorist threat was capable of being addressed on diplomatic terms. But my opposition was also rooted in humility: I COULD NOT know what the President of the United States, his cabinet, and his closest handlers, knew. In short, I was self-aware enough to know my limitations. I would defer to the professionals, those who were "inside."

Hence, my opposition to the war was by definition, if you will, open to change. I was willing to learn; to adapt to "conditions on the ground." After all, I was not elected president, nor was I privy to all those things that American presidents are privy. Nor was I ever in a position to treat my opinions as absolute. How could I be? What, pray tell, did I know?

But you, dear sir, have even recently admitted once again that you have been utterly consistent about Iraq being the wrong war. Let me return to this in a second. First, I have this to say about myself.

It was not until I learned of the "Iraq Liberation Act" signed in 1998 by Bill Clinton in which he called for regime change in Iraq that my heart and mind began to change (sometime after the start of the 2003 invasion). Perhaps the shock of 9/11 had dulled my senses; perhaps I had forgotten even recent history. Perhaps I forgot such things as those outlined here:

  • In 1980, President Jimmy Carter created the Carter Doctrine. That Democratic Party leader's doctrine said, in part, that the United States would use military action to protect the nation's interest in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.
  • In 1991, George H. W. Bush, following the Carter Doctrine, led Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm to protect American interests in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia by reversing Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
  • In 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore's campaign for president against rival George H. W. Bush included broad and damning criticisms of Bush's bungling of the first Gulf War. Both Democrats argued that Bush had coddled terrorists; that Bush had failed his country and the world by not removing the regime of that "grave threat," Saddam Hussein.
  • Once Bill Clinton won the White House, it was his administration that ramped up sanctions and military actions against Iraq. Clinton would handle Hussein: he would either be replaced or contained. (Moreover, I like to remind people what they have forgotten, namely, that there was virtually not one single day from 1991 to the end of the Clinton administration's final term, or more than 8 years, that the US was NOT in some type of military conflict with Iraq. The current "war" is not 5 years old, but 17.)
  • During the entirety of the Clinton administration, the US flew more sorties against Iraq than were flown during the first Gulf War. And let us not forget the two major operations run in 1996 and 1998, Operation Desert Strike and Operation Desert Fox, respectively.
  • In 1998, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act calling for regime change in Iraq.
  • In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued his infamous fatwa against the United States, calling for the death of Americans everywhere. Bin Laden's biggest grudge? The continued abuse and oppression of the Iraqi people by the Clinton regime. (I like to remind people that the fatwa was issued under the Clinton administration.)
  • In 2001, the fatwa of Osama bin Laden was dramatically obeyed on September 11.
  • In 2002, as the 9/11 Commission was about to interview Bill Clinton's national security advisor, Sandy Berger, Mr. Berger went to the National Archives and stole allegedly original documents. Curiously, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Berger had not stolen original and unprotected materials. He was fined $50,000, sentenced to 2 years probation, and had his security clearance revoked for three years. (A mere wrist slap.)
  • In 2003, George W. Bush, following the Carter Doctrine and Bill Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act, began the invasion of Iraq.
  • In 2007, former American member of the UN Iraq Weapons Inspection team, Scott Ritter, a popular (among the left) Bush critic and critic of the Iraq War, told Laura Knoy on New Hampshire Public Radio that the Clinton administration continously suppressed the findings of the weapons inspectors (the inspectors kept reporting that there were no weapons), because Clinton was concealing a "regime change" strategy under the cloak of weapons inspections. Ritter said that if the news of the Iraqi government's compliance with the demolition of weapons caches were published, the Clinton plan to remove Hussein would be doomed, as compliance meant reducing sanctions and penalties against Iraq.
You see, then, Senator, that there was much to remember about the Iraq "war", such things that are not one whit becoming to Democrats. In fact, the timeline is really something Democrats have every reason to want to forget. But the important thing I learned was that Iraq was deemed a central war front by Osama bin Laden himself. George W. Bush and his minions made no such declaration; Iraq was never a "distraction" to the greater war on terror. Osama bin Laden defined the front for America, as did both the Carter Doctrine and the Clinton Iraq Liberation Act.

My agreement with you today might be that what is debatable is actually the invading of Iraq. But when both the Carter and Clinton legacies seem to point in the direction of that very act, and when we have seen rather incredible success in a country your own party had declared lost and mired in civil war (where'd that war go?), I have to admit that I may have had things mixed up when I opposed the war. Don't get me wrong. I don't like war; I am not particularly bellicose. But that is just me: I will never stand in the way of those who freely choose to defend themselves in ways I may dislike.

Yet here's my larger criticism, and it is rather plain: You ran for president knowing that a wild success in Iraq would be disasterous for your candidacy. You went into this whole thing knowing that a glowing end to the Iraq conflict, one that ended in greatness and fanfare during George W. Bush's tenure, would diminish your alleged "prescience" tremendously. You persistently "stayed the course," following your own "the-war-was-wrong" narrative. You even demonstrated an incredible reluctance to admit your own myopia and fallibility regarding the "surge," which John McCain practically designed. The best you could do was to decry it with praise: saying that it succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations meant simply that everyone was wrong. That sort of praise, of course, is not an admission, but it is protection. Such protection though is rather thin, for your position and posturings have left me with an incredible insecurity: knowing as you did that a success in Iraq would hurt you, I can't help but think that you HAD to have rooted against it, at least secretly. My sad cynicism is indeed so very sad that I am even willing to consider the possibility that you worked to undermine the war's success at every political turn. How could you possibly hope for something that could be to your ruin? What evidence is there that you ever REALLY did fight on behalf of the war; what evidence is there that you did not root against it?

I spoke with a friend who is seeking reelection to the NH legislature (his wife and mine are quite close). He is a liberal Democrat and one of your supporters. He shared how discouraged he is by the constant breaks in the legislative calendar and the leadership shake-ups that occur any given year. Continuity and consistency, he averred, were tantamount to creating decent domestic policies. And he agreed with my observation that America's penchant for changing its top leaders so frequently, every four years (or eight), meant that American foreign policy can be rendered feckless, appearing incoherent, contradictory, and capricious as the country goes this way, then that way, and then a completely different way, all within perhaps a decade. The world's calendar is not often ours.

So, in light of the fact that we have before us gargantuan struggles both foreign and domestic, and in light of the fact that you have shown me that you've not one tidbit of competence in such grave matters (you've given me no idea or resumé by which I can determine how you will decide or even IF you can make a decision), I cannot vote for you when America is at war and in crisis. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds; but a wise consistency is the very marrow of excellence. America needs someone who could not ever have generated in even one voter the thought that a candidate for president may have hoped against the war efforts of his or her own nation. This country needs someone who has a proven record of decision-making, not dream-making. Since the only clear decision you have made is to run for office; and though it is not even clear your decision was even your own and not one made by a committee of your ambitious backers, I conclude, again, that I cannot vote for you.

Of course, I've already said this five times. Forgive the redundancy.

Peace this night, and always.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.


Dear Sen. Obama: Why I Can't Vote For You -- Reason #3: You Don't Mean What You Say

Dear Sen. Obama,

I hope you are doing well today. I've heard reports that you are feeling particularly chipper.Âş

When you promised to accept federal public financing for your campaign, how is it that you so swiftly broke that pledge? Was it because $610,000,000 looked too good to pass up? Did you feel that the new direction America needed, the change we have been waiting for, is for someone to finally and literally buy the White House?

And when you describe yourself as inspired by a friend, one to whom you've given your loyalty, how is it that you can renounce him in his weakness, even though he was your pastor for 20 years?

And why is it that whenever someone attempts to hold you accountable for what you've clearly said and done, and NOT done, over the years, how come your constant rejoinder, offered reflexively, is that such things "are a distraction"? When, dear Senator, will such things ever get the attention they deserve?

Surely you did not mean it when you said recently that John McCain and Sarah Palin wanted to make "a virtue of selfishness." Tell me, please, that you understand -- you have been described as brilliant -- the difference between selfishness and greed; between healthy self-interest and venomous avarice and envy. Tell me, please, that you understand that selflessness is NEVER A MATTER OF LAW, of being FORCED to "give" charitably under threat of punishment. Please, I beg you, where's the hope in that? And how is it "patriotic" (your campaign's word) to pay higher taxes when taxes are a matter of law? Are you suggesting patriotism is also to be forced upon a people? What next?

Please, I am asking you to tell me that you are not blind to the fact that you are a millionaire; that even if you lose tomorrow, you will be fabulously wealthy, able to command obscene speaking and appearance fees all over the world. Tell me you've no selfish intent here; tell me that you did not keep your money from your own half brother and allegedly beloved aunt, both living in poverty, because you were waiting to have LAWS and TAX CODES break you free of your own stunning selfishness. Tell me that you see the difference between freedom and chains. I beg you, tell me that you are not so cynical that you think Americans don't see and hear that you think them dumb, avaricious and unpatriotic. (And you should tell me how it is you did not know your beloved aunt was in this country illegally. One wonders how she even got here then, if you have no idea.)

Surely you can see why I don't believe you mean what you say?

Here's the bottom line, Senator. I hear what you are saying, and you do mean it, but only insofar as you are counting on the envy of your followers: You are hoping they will not think too much; that they will only react to what is presented as "unfair" and "unjust," and hence you will have hooked them in to giving you their money and their votes. You derive power from the envy that clings to your promises. You foster an "us against them" mentality, the "selfless" against the "selfish." The good against the bad.

Amazingly, it seems maybe just less than half the country recognizes that your words do not have much selflessness in them. You preach selflesslessness for personal gain.

My feeling, Senator, is that you should go take care of your own,† freely and without threat of censure, seizure or penalty, and then come back to us with the news of this great new selflessness, the true patriotism and new direction, you and Sen. Biden describe so eloquently. In mere words.

Peace, and good luck.

ÂşSince first posting this letter, I have been informed that your grandmother died today. I apologize for the seemingly insensitive remark, but I did hear reports that you were feeling quite elated and confident. I am sorry that your mood has probably changed in light of your family's loss.

†But who am I? I fail at this miserably. But my failure is in freedom; I strain to love not by compulsion or threat of a nation's watchful eye. My hope is that love arises freely of its own in my will, my heart, my very soul. Love cannot be forced. It is never statutory. Love is freedom, and it is fed by freedom's patience and grace.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.



No Surprises At All: Bush and Co. Don't Deliver

Alas, alack, let us all rend our garments! George W. Bush, that evil-doer, has not suddenly found Osama bin Laden; he has not been holding that infamous terrorist hostage just so he could be "captured" at the perfect moment. Oil prices have not plunged to levels Americans once knew in the blissful 1960s; oil is not flowing like rivers down our streets. No crazy videotape from some rocky redoubt has been secreted away and aired on Fox News, sending tremors of fear down the American spine. No terrorist plot has been foiled in Detroit, no bombs detonated in Syracuse or Flagstaff. The terrorist threat level has not been raised.

The alleged fear-mongers and manipulators have abandoned us. They have let us down. They have proven their great incompetence, unable to bring forward the very evidence of their own great conspiracies. John McCain will not be saved by the immediate extradition of Osama bin Laden from his vacation home in Buenos Aires; Bush and Co. have nothing to present to surprise either October or November. They have no tricks up their sleeves, because they have no sleeves. They have no clothes.

(Rumor has it that Wesley Clark has been holding Osama bin Laden so he can present him as Barack Obama's trophy two days after the inauguration.)

On the eve of the "most important election in our lifetime," one message is clear: Bush can't get nothin' right.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

I Witness: McCain's 'Last' Town Hall Meeting

Yes. I was there. The message IS the medium, the proof in the picture: my self-portrait in front of Peterborough, NH's lovely town hall moments before John McCain would speak from its steps proves that I was crazy enough to endure rather cold weather for more than two hours just so I could witness what is possibly the end of a man's bid for the White House.



But permit me to backtrack a moment.

When my wife and I chose at the last minute (practically) to attend the John McCain rally in gorgeous Peterborough, NH (where Thornton Wilder wrote "Our Town"), I decided, like a fool, to travel lightly: no cameras, no gear. If any of you have been to a major political event involving tight security and Secret Service, you know what I mean; and any of you who have worked in the press and have been "handled" by the campaign operatives know what I mean by "handling." Besides, I have brought my photo gear to work such events "outside" the press handlers' reach, and even then I have been hassled. Traveling without any potential hindrances sure made sense as I stood in my house planning my strategy.

But I was a fool for leaving my cameras home. Peterborough, after all, is essentially my home turf. I lived in that fine village for five years; my wife and I, though we live less than 10 miles away, run most of our errands there. It is the local hub. So what was I thinking when I jumped into an incredible queue without my cameras when there was so much pure political theater going on out on Grove Street (though there is a Main Street, Grove Street FEELS more like Peterborough's main street)? Obama supporters were set on the east side of Grove; they chanted and shouted and sang and, at times, harangued. Giant puppets paraded down the street; McCain supporters mostly stationed on the west side of Grove waved signs and sang "God bless America!" and did their own bit of preaching. Besides both teams chanting in unison "USA!", which was nice, some of both parties' representatives taunted each other; the badinage was quite humorous and delightful, at least to me. But I am getting ahead of myself for, you see, a friend of my wife's was queued up with my sweet bride; hearing my lament that I was stuck using my cell phone camera to record what was going on, she handed me (thanks Lauren!) her Nikon point-and-shoot (I am a Canon guy so Nikons are utterly backward). Assured that I had a spot saved in line, I took off with a dinky camera and did my best.

What sort of things did I see? [Images are not chronological; click on each one for larger view.]

Well, there was the frightening:



And the surreal:



(Apparently this moving parody of a red demon GOP elephant steered by the diminutive George W. Bush set atop its head and leading a disfigured John McCain was intended to make an effective point.)

And then there was the REALLY surreal:




There was a surprising visit by an old icon:




(Uncle Sam shouted -- you can guess which side he was on -- such inspirations as "No friends of Paris† in the White House!")

There was the predictable (it amazes me that a friend of mine, a self-described Marxist, would choose to pick a fight with this guy as I took this shot):



There was also the rather wordy (though this poor photographer nixed the punch line, which read "Keep the change").



And there was just the plain-Jane sort of stuff (cell phone picture):



But in the end, what I saw was really a slice of America, united in its division, divided in its unity: E Pluribus Unum all topsy-turvy.



______________________

You may be wondering what an award-winning photographer came up with for an image of Sen. John McCain. Well, I don't mind boasting: I got an incredible shot. It combines everything great about my talents with a borrowed camera; it shows you my deft skills as I handle even an unfamiliar camera while being jostled by cheering, jumping fans of John McCain. This IS the quintessential image, sharp, clear, precise, professional. It's clearly fit for a national journal's cover. In fact, it is so good it might even be prophetic.

Besides, what would you expect of a guy who has been "nothing but a hack" for all things McCain? Judge for yourself:








(Only seconds after taking this image, I did shake Mr. McCain's left hand with my own left hand. A secret leftist's handshake, you know.)

OK. So the image is itself part of the surreal, the fantastical, the ephemeral. But at least I've left a surprise for Lauren when she downloads her images (uh, sorry Lauren).

Peace.

†For the uninitiated, that would be "Paris Hilton."

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.


Saturday, November 01, 2008

Dear Sen. Obama: Why I Can't Vote For You -- Reason #4: Your Vision Is Not Change

Dear Senator,

I bid you well. I pray all is fine with you.

Even I have begin to suspect that I've done the wrong thing by beginning at the end of a series. Forgive me if I've created something that seems confusing.

I don't know if you've noticed the political signs posted along the roads in New Hampshire. I know you were here recently; you spoke at Mack's Apples, a capital place, over in Londonderry (that town holds a very special position in my heart). Maybe while you were in the Granite State you spotted the signs posted in support of your and John McCain's respective candidacies. I take you for an astute observer; surely you noticed that there is not a single sign from the Republican committee or the McCain campaign critical of you. Did you notice that? Not a single sign. Where I live, in the Monadnock corner of New Hampshire, there is an incredible Democratic presence here; you have many fine supporters. But there is not a street or traffic island whereon one does not see this sign: John McSame: Voted With Bush 90% of the Time! Unfortunately, I can't depict the sign as accurately as I would like here; but I know you know that the -Cain in John McCain is crossed out and a -Same is super-imposed. It's an effective sign, no doubt, but it is essentially negative.

You have repeatedly promised that you would be above the fray, that you would not sink to partisan, divisive, negative and base politics. But you have not even remotely kept your promise. Your campaign is rife with negative rhetoric; there has been nary a day wherein you have not tossed some negative bomb at John McCain. Worst of all was your rhetorical preemptive strike launched his way when you rather cunningly told your listeners that they would begin to hear from the Republican nominee that you would be untrustworthy because you were different, with a funny name, and that you did not look like those who adorned the American currency. This race-baiting, race-laden insinuation was not only petty and gauche, it was thoroughly old-school: your words and actions prove you are not new. (And John McCain NEVER did what you suggested.)

In the most recent ad produced by your campaign and approved by you, a most desperate ad if there ever was one, you charge John McCain of lifting Sen. Biden's now infamous words out of context. Those comments, begun by Mr. Biden with "mark my words," were issued as a warning that your supporters, should you win, would have to hang faithful because you would be challenged by a "generated" international crisis and you would react unpredictably. But only a fool would make the assertion John McCain mishandled Sen. Biden's words; only a fool would believe you. But the most audacious and foolish thing I've seen you do in recent months is to then say in the ad that "This is what Joe Biden REALLY said." Why is this audacious? Why is this foolish? Because it is you who has taken YOUR OWN RUNNING MATE'S words out of context! John McCain did indeed contextualize them; you, however, realizing the damage your OWN colleague's remarks would have on your White House bid, chose to create an utterly false impression from a mere fragment of what Joe Biden said. This, Sen. Obama, is bush-league politics par excellence. There is nothing new here.

You have promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan. You have begun to modify your "exit strategy" out of Iraq in such a way that it's beginning to sound like the exit strategy currently in play; you voted for renewing the Patriot Act (though partly modified) and FISA, you have accepted and even augmented President Bush's faith-based initiatives. Hence, would it not be fair -- and do forgive me -- to call you Barack TheSame Obama? Change we can believe in, Senator? Really?

Yesterday I heard a soundbite from one of your stump speeches. This is what you said in your "Closing Argument" speech:

"In three days, you can put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election; that tries to pit region against region, city against town, Republican against Democrat; that asks us to fear at a time when we need hope."

I am sorry, sir, but can you expect us to take this seriously? Who was it that injected division into this campaign? Was it not you? Who brought up skin color? Was that not you? Indeed, it was. Who divided rich and poor, setting the poor against the rich? It was you. Who pitted those who "cling" to religion and guns against those who don't? It was you. Who suggested that the rubes of Pennsylvania did not feel comfortable meeting people who were different? Was that not you? And wasn't it your own Jack Murtha who described those rubes as redneck and racist? Alas, it was you; and it was your Jack Murtha.

It simply is not possible for you to offer a message of unity, Senator, precisely because you belong to a party. In indentifying yourself as something "other than," meaning a Democrat, you chose to be a dividing force. Had you presented yourself as an independent, only then could you sensibly talk of unity. But even the fact that you are a Democrat is not enough to explain your divisiveness. Sir, your message is one of division from beginning to end. How are you, for example, in any sense a unifier regarding abortion, homosexual rights, the war on terror, tax policy, Israel?

And what could be more audacious than your claim that yours is not a message of fear? Egads, Senator, in one debate you said -- in the same paragraph -- that it was time to stop playing the politics of fear AND that Americans were less safe from terrorism than ever before! How CYNICAL are you about the intellectual abilities of Americans? Do you think we are that stupid? Plus, have you not actually run a campaign from beginning to end that is built on fear? You know what I mean. Here's your campaign:

  • Fear the damage George Bush has done to our country
  • Fear how the world views us
  • Fear Big Oil and their tax credits
  • Fear the Bush tax cuts that only help the wealthy and yet give "nothing to 100 million households"
  • Fear that you will not be able to afford college or health care
  • Fear that your jobs will be outsourced
  • Fear, oh women, that your right to ensure your lives have meaning by killing unwanted babies is revoked
  • Fear that some among us will play the race card
  • Fear that John McCain is just four more years of the same tired failures
  • Fear that Sarah Palin is unqualified
I could go on and on and on. Yours IS a campaign of fear, as it is of division, of setting town and city and region against each other. And hence your campaign begs me to ask, "When you talk about the audacity of hope, are you asking us to hope that you know what you are doing? Are you asking us to hope that you are trustworthy? Are you asking us to hope that you won't constantly project onto others the vices and sins for which you are already guilty?"

How about, Senator, the audacity of truth? How about the audacity of being that which really is new? How about helping us somehow believe that you are not really a designer candidate; help us see that you are your own man, capable of honest self-reflection.

But, please, I beg you, stop insulting our intelligence. We are smarter than you think. Your cynicism does not become you. We are REALLY listening. We really are paying attention. And what we have not yet seen or heard is a man uniting much but old foes, old chums, and very old politics.

Peace.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Dear Sen. Obama: Why I Can't Vote For You -- Reason #5: You've Taken Advantage Of Youth's Idealism

Dear Senator Obama,

Again, I pray this note finds you well.

I will reiterate that it seems backwards to begin a series at number 6. But I have been known to be a little backwards; just ask my neighbors. And it will appear equally backwards that I should find fault with your taking advantage of, and even to exploiting, the hearts of youthful voting Americans.

I recall my college years all too well: I was full of idealism about making the world a better place, about injustice and greed and the great corporate menace which was America. I recall being captivated in my dorm room one Saturday afternoon 23 years ago by a book denigrating capitalism; I can remember shaking my head in angry disbelief as I read about the disparities between those who have and those who don't. I remember walking through the then new-Copley Plaza (circa 1984) in Boston and being disgusted by the gratuitous display of wealth and privilege; I can still feel myself torn between the desire to embrace ambition and financial success and the desire to rain down revolution as I walked through that center of contrasts, Harvard Square. (For a fuller picture of my thoughts about the war on poverty, please see this series.)

But I also remember from those years as a young adult not merely this sense of injustice (at least insofar as my prejudices and convictions proved how far America had fallen short of my vision of the ideal world); what I also remember is that I was really quite full of fear. And, I am afraid to say, I was full of envy.

The fear is easy to understand: I would look at the emblems and benchmarks of achievement -- educational and economic success, career standing, home ownership, marriage, parenting, planning for retirement -- with a great deal of trepidation. Clearly my anxiety was born of one simple fact: Life is not promised to be easy. Hard work, risk, competition, failure; all of these daunted me, especially since I was beginning my journey already in the grip of significant debt. 'Why, oh why, did it all have to be so hard?' I would ask myself.

My fears were also born of the seeming imminence of war, of the looming challenges before us -- not only as a culture and nation, but as a civilization -- in the face of aggressors from the east and west. Nuclear war was nearly daily talked about; it may have been a Cold War, but those of us who were young could feel the infernal fires. And then, of course, there were the ubiquitous fears about the environment.

Couple all this with my envy of those who already knew privilege and my shame at my own privileges when I would compare myself to those less fortunate, and you had a young man who concealed envy and resentment, and all his fears, in the language of social injustice, inequity, and unfairness. My politics were shaped by a sense of inadequacy and simple envy (and its corollary, shame at being envied both by the American poor and the underprivileged the world over).

In short, I was, without question, a rather haughty socialist-leaning young adult.

Of course, even though I had done well in my college economics studies, my anxieties, fears, envy and anger blinded me in such a way that I could not understand one simple thing, namely, where wealth and prosperity and jobs and even liberty actually came from. In some sense, I thought money was just 'there', and that the wealthy were simply the greedy and avaricious, the hoarders and pack rats of capital. I believed that their wealth was directly related to my poverty; I believed that their wealth caused my poverty. (And how was it fair that one college graduate left school in a new BMW 320i while I had to repair an old Buick Skylark?)

As many observers have already pointed out, you, Senator, are relatively unknown: you are something of a blank slate onto which we all, if we choose, project our deepest hopes and desires, and our deeply masked fears and resentments. Seemingly countless Americans have pinned what strikes me as an inordinate hope on you, expectant that you will right all wrongs, that justice and fairness will be our new prosperity in the light of your deft leadership; that all our fears and jealousies shall be allayed, and life will be, in the end, easier.

My disagreement with you is that you have essentially promised that you will make life easier; from student loan reform to job creation to tax relief to 'spreading the wealth,' you have appealed to the young not only like a Peter Pan, you've played Pan's flute, and have become the Pied-Piper of our day. You know it is all too easy to sing the sort of tune young adults want to hear; rock-and-roll songwriters have known the art all too well, tapping into youths' alienation from the 'great machine' and the expectations voiced by a meaningless corporate American life. No, you not only have promised hope you cannot give, you have promised meaning and purpose, and an ease of conscience. America will finally be better, because it will be easier, safer (and cleaner).

When I was a young man I remember listening to the 1984 Democratic National Convention. I recall listening to the keynote speaker that night (I can't recall who it was) and hearing something that began to change my fundamental beliefs. The speaker said that America was only great if its policies were bent toward the care of the lower classes. But what I heard was something far more insidious: I heard the denigration of life. What I heard was the religion of the state. For what the speaker was ultimately telling me, a young man who was indeed poor, who was indeed of the lower classes (and even the disenfranchised), was that I could not live a meaningful, enfranchised life, one fraught with purpose, unless the state forced my betters to assist me. And I also heard that the lower classes could not be happy, content, important or engaged unless they had the things common to the more affluent middle and upper classes.

Needless to say, I recoiled at what I heard; it seemed an audacious insult. For clearly I was being told my life was less than it could be because I had less money; less ease. And clearly my life -- and my sense of worth -- were being compared to those above me, and that my salvation would come from their beneficence. I also heard that my betters would take care of me; this not only seemed an insult, it seemed a convenient boast for those who deemed themselves more compassionate.

In short, I heard something akin to oppression, to negation. I heard a denial that worth was mine to define for myself or that it was given me by God. No, my intrinsic value, my own sense of meaning and purpose, were contingent on some standard determined and created by others, those who had such things settled and now could "give back." In the end, I heard a religious proclamation, that my deepest longings were defined and fulfilled by the state, the beneficent state.

But ultimately I heard a criticism of all that the poets, prophets and religious teachers had taught me: I heard a profound contradiction. For I was told by the philosopher and poet that meaning was not found in status, class, wealth or opportunity. I was told by saint and sage that material goods did not liberate, nor did they impart meaning or satisfy the human heart. But from my liberal betters I heard the speech of emptiness; I heard the promise that material goods and class standing and money were the very essence of a person's worth. And I heard something from them that seems utterly easy to justify, and also to speak, even though it is inherently self-canceling: "The wealthy have too much, they are too materialistic. We must make compassion and charity a matter of law; we shall take from those who are too materialistic so we can foster materialism in the poor." (Of course, it is not said this way. If it was, it would never appeal to but the most puerile voter.)

In the end, it all sounded to me a lot like a form of slavery.

Senator, for me, I hear that sort of language from you. Your hope is to the religiously and philosophically sensitive listeners really quite vapid; and it is, in an ironic sense, an emptiness that over-reaches. You have promised too much; you have claimed too great a place in history, in the world, and in the souls of men and women. Your message, and your masses, are not what the world, or one single soul, should be or ever has been waiting for. Sadly, you have tapped into the hearts of too many young people, giving them a solidarity and purpose that should be forged independent of the masses; you have appealed to their profound vulnerabilities, and you have offered them what cannot ever be given. Nor should it be given.

A stronger humanity comes through struggle, competition, challenge. Ease should never be a campaign promise. Compassion and justice can never be meted out by tax codes, or redistribution of wealth.

Speak, if you will, to the very ideals of American youth, but do not offer to our youth promises that no president should be making.

Blessings to you, and peace.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.