"We're Americans, with a capital 'A', huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts! ...So we're all dogfaces, we're all very, very different, but there is one thing that we all have in common: we were all stupid enough to enlist in the Army. We're mutants. There's something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us - we're soldiers. But we're American soldiers! We've been kicking ass for 200 years! We're 10 and 1! Now we don't have to worry about whether or not we practiced. We don't have to worry about whether Captain Stillman wants to have us hung. All we have to do is to be the great American fighting soldier that is inside each one of us. Now do what I do, and say what I say. And make me proud."
So argues John (Bill Murray), hoping to whip a lovable platoon of losers into shape for their field exercises at boot camp during the 11th hour in the 1981 comedy classic Stripes. The narrative of American supremacy has been a mainstay of our cultural heritage since 1776. Let's face it...the idea of tackling the strongest nation in the world on democratic principles was a daunting exercise in bravado over two centuries ago, and the hard-earned success of those early patriots has imbibed the modern American brand of nationalism with the same kind of intoxicated exuberance John calls upon when insisting the "great American fighting soldier" has "been kicking ass for 200 years!"
Though perhaps misguided to the point of becoming the ugly, proud American detested by much of the rest of the world, these feelings are grounded in a kind of positive mental image of the nation that, when called upon, has been incredibly constructive in urging the adoption of peace and democracy throughout the world (for the most part). If our soldiers and lawmakers hadn't had the confidence to enter both World Wars, global politics would be very different today. Like any emotional belief, however, the risk of getting carried away looms large. Independence Day thus often becomes an overindulgence of nationalistic pride, as explosives are strapped to trees, insects and relatives in an inebriated stupor that reflects the intoxication of believing America (in the sense of our government and the current population of Americans) are above reproach and unaffected by the machinations of the global political climate.
What we should really be celebrating on Independence Day are the ideas and people who established this nation on democratic principles. This is a positive way of recognizing the birth of a nation that stood in such stark opposition to the confinement of individual liberty and self-determination. John's first point, that the concept of "America" should extend to all those downtrodden underdogs who have the audacity to stand up against oppression in their lives, underscores a universality and positivity that is lacking in today's interpretation of what America is and should be. While cutting a block of dry ice for a customer at the grocery store I work at last week, I was treated to five or six minutes of a lecture on the ways in which our country is being led astray by the current administration. That's the nice part about working in retail...usually it's as close to a purely populist perspective you can get without changing your name to Huey Long.
The passionate argument of the customer (I didn't get a name, and I didn't really want one, with all due respect...) alerted me to a truth about today's American in a time of relative crisis unlike what we've seen for several generations: the terms of definition have changed from attempting to identify what America is and stands for, to what America is not and should not stand for. Several months ago, this extended to ploys from the Republican Party trying to prove the current president is not actually a citizen of the United States (which has led to some rather embarrassing snafus). Extending healthcare to all members of society is not bad fiscal policy to many Americans, it is "socialist" and therefore in direct violation of the capitalist foundations of our democracy. Immigration legislation in Arizona, Georgia (parts of which were stricken as illegal by a federal appeals court today in a trial that won't get much pub with the Anthony verdict being handed down earlier this afternoon), and Iowa further attempt to define who is American by encouraging law enforcement officials to act on hunches as to who looks un-American.
I'm not advocating making our borders completely permeable, or trusting our elected officials without any degree of scrutiny. What I'm attempting to illuminate is the fact that we take one day out of our year to define ourselves as Americans based on values exemplified in a document declaring independence and celebration of the sacrifices of so many who fought for what this country is, not to point out what it is not. Perhaps it would be more constructive and less mind-numbingly depressing to remain, at times of great tests of our American character, sure of who we are and what our values are, rather than attempting to point out what we are not and what we will not abide. Maybe then I can read a news and press release on July 5th without feeling as though I had one too many cheddar-dogs and held that sparkler bomb in my hand about three seconds too long.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Move it along, no hostilities to see here...
Unbeknownst to many Americans, there's a conflict raging in the House that has absolutely nothing to do with revealing boxer shorts and Twitter this week. President Obama's team defended military action in Libya on Wednesday in response to a House resolution condemning the action last month and Dennis Kucinich's current legal quibble with the continued use of military resources ostensibly to remove Muammar Qadafi from power. The statement from the White House is significant because it establishes a threshold at which armed conflict reaches the "hostilities" level. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973, states:
"It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."
In suggesting that the current military engagement in Libya by American forces doesn't constitute "hostilities" as defined in the resolution, the White House wrests control of the debate and exercises a further prerogative in determining foreign policy that runs contrary to both the language of the resolution and, subsequently, the Constitution.
Let's go back to third grade (because, in all honesty, Washington more often resembles the playground than the epicenter of United States' foreign and domestic policy). You're lunch money has been stolen over and over again by the same bully, and you've had enough. You plan to meet under the slides right after the bell rings. You've entered a schoolyard fight, and pursuant to the rules of the playground both sides know what they're in for. If caught, detention will have to be served. Now imagine the you simply throw rocks at the bully from across the playground, and, when the assistant principal inevitably steps in to break up the fight, only he goes to detention. Throwing rocks doesn't constitute actual engagement in a "fight," instead you were simply antagonizing the bully and are therefore no longer susceptible to the laws of the playground.
That may be a crude analogy (okay, it is a crude analogy. I don't think Qadafi's greatest crime was hanging his opponents by their jock straps from his flag pole). The fact remains, however, that Obama is attempting to both rewrite the laws and definitions of the United States unilaterally for further Commanders-in-Chief to exercise. As the Times correctly points out, the judicial branch will likely steer clear of this justiciable conflict based upon political technicalities, leaving the controversy to be settled through political means. Should the ability of the executive to wage war without the consent of the people be left to determination through political channels? Sure, the conflict in Libya (in conjunction with other uprisings throughout the Muslim world) currently carries with it the apparent will of the majority. The White House conceded that the military and diplomatic goals (to protect the innocent, to depose Qaddafi) of the United States are different. If Obama wins this constitutional showdown, however, the next time a conflict (NOT "hostilities"!) comes along, regardless of its morally-defined bounds, the future president will have Obama's precedent to legitimately exercise his authority. And the American public will be the ones waiting in line for that swirlie.
"It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."
In suggesting that the current military engagement in Libya by American forces doesn't constitute "hostilities" as defined in the resolution, the White House wrests control of the debate and exercises a further prerogative in determining foreign policy that runs contrary to both the language of the resolution and, subsequently, the Constitution.
Let's go back to third grade (because, in all honesty, Washington more often resembles the playground than the epicenter of United States' foreign and domestic policy). You're lunch money has been stolen over and over again by the same bully, and you've had enough. You plan to meet under the slides right after the bell rings. You've entered a schoolyard fight, and pursuant to the rules of the playground both sides know what they're in for. If caught, detention will have to be served. Now imagine the you simply throw rocks at the bully from across the playground, and, when the assistant principal inevitably steps in to break up the fight, only he goes to detention. Throwing rocks doesn't constitute actual engagement in a "fight," instead you were simply antagonizing the bully and are therefore no longer susceptible to the laws of the playground.
That may be a crude analogy (okay, it is a crude analogy. I don't think Qadafi's greatest crime was hanging his opponents by their jock straps from his flag pole). The fact remains, however, that Obama is attempting to both rewrite the laws and definitions of the United States unilaterally for further Commanders-in-Chief to exercise. As the Times correctly points out, the judicial branch will likely steer clear of this justiciable conflict based upon political technicalities, leaving the controversy to be settled through political means. Should the ability of the executive to wage war without the consent of the people be left to determination through political channels? Sure, the conflict in Libya (in conjunction with other uprisings throughout the Muslim world) currently carries with it the apparent will of the majority. The White House conceded that the military and diplomatic goals (to protect the innocent, to depose Qaddafi) of the United States are different. If Obama wins this constitutional showdown, however, the next time a conflict (NOT "hostilities"!) comes along, regardless of its morally-defined bounds, the future president will have Obama's precedent to legitimately exercise his authority. And the American public will be the ones waiting in line for that swirlie.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
What does the Arab Spring mean for the United States?
As reported by CNN, the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes project recently discovered that the recent events of the so-called "Arab Spring" have not improved the image of the United States in Muslim nations throughout the Middle East. The fact that the question was even investigated by the Pew group and reported with such a by-line by CNN suggests two important truths about the average American's conception of foreign policy.
First, we need some kind of context with which to digest new information. Often, that context is historical. When George W. Bush identified enemies of the United States in the 2002 State of the Union Address, he used the term "Axis of Evil" to unite radical terrorist factions in the Middle East and Asia with the unquestionably-evil dictatorships of the Second World War. Today, when a military effort begins to go south, the immediate go-to phrase is that the conflict is becoming "another Vietnam." By naming this the "Arab Spring," the media introduces a narrative of brief success followed by catastrophe. The rebels in Libya and Egypt are fighting against a cruel and un-American ideology. They are struggling for the formation of democratic ideals in their country. And they are doing so in spite of the pernicious influence of an autocratic government clinging to a level of sovereignty they no longer possess (if they did in the first place) through the mandate of the people. The distinguishing characteristics of the actual conflicts in the Middle East fade behind the historical context that is imposed upon them through the classification of the "Arab Spring." The thoughts, concerns, and goals of the reformers in these countries mimic those of the Czechs in the minds of historical-conscious Americans. And, because the ideological conflict in the Cold War was between Soviet authoritarianism and American democracy, the average person jumps to the conclusion that the participants in this rebel movement hold the same values as Americans. Pew's research, then, becomes surprising for the average American.
Though it shouldn't be. Vaclav Havel wrote in the 1980s that the American model of democracy would not work for an independent Czechoslovakia. The efforts of the Prague Spring were made by independent thinkers who sought the creation of their own democracy on their own terms. Though they struggled against Soviet influence on their government, this alone did not unite them with American principles and values. However, the ideological view is simpler to digest. So Americans watch the Arab Spring with confidence, pride, and the belief that even if Gaddafi is somehow able to restore his rule, the clamoring for democracy in the Middle East is a product of the example established by the United States and the modernization of Libya is an eventual inevitability.
This leads us to the second important illuminating feature of the Pew report. Americans generally view their path to democracy as the only possible one, or at least the only desirable one. And why not? Hasn't American democracy been delivered to numerous countries throughout the world (Japan, South Korea, even Iraq) with moderate to extensive levels of success? When any country in the world subsequently calls for a more democratic form of government in the face of autocratic oppression, most Americans view this as a consequence of the fine example of liberal democracy we present. The belief dates back to Winthrop's assertion of Plymouth's status as a "City on a Hill" during the colonial period, and of course Reagan's subsequent use of the metaphor in 1984. We've never quite relinquished that belief, that somehow America is the paragon of liberal democracy. The impulse to question citizens of these countries, during times of great political turmoil and uncertainty, how they feel about the United States in response to these occurrences illustrates this continued insistence upon viewing any democratic development in the world through an American lens.
The events of the so-called "Arab Spring" are undoubtedly important and essential. Autocratic governments, in any shape or form, cannot and should not exist in a global community committed to the values of democracy and equality. When we read into these events the superiority of the American model of democracy, and insist upon our own ideological involvement in what is occurring, we obscure the truth, however. President Obama and all American citizens should welcome the democratic reforms in the Middle East that will emerge from this political movement. But we should treat these developments as indications of the unquestioned strength of our own democratic system, nor should we expect democratic governments modeled after and openly friendly to ours once these reforms are inevitably put into place.
First, we need some kind of context with which to digest new information. Often, that context is historical. When George W. Bush identified enemies of the United States in the 2002 State of the Union Address, he used the term "Axis of Evil" to unite radical terrorist factions in the Middle East and Asia with the unquestionably-evil dictatorships of the Second World War. Today, when a military effort begins to go south, the immediate go-to phrase is that the conflict is becoming "another Vietnam." By naming this the "Arab Spring," the media introduces a narrative of brief success followed by catastrophe. The rebels in Libya and Egypt are fighting against a cruel and un-American ideology. They are struggling for the formation of democratic ideals in their country. And they are doing so in spite of the pernicious influence of an autocratic government clinging to a level of sovereignty they no longer possess (if they did in the first place) through the mandate of the people. The distinguishing characteristics of the actual conflicts in the Middle East fade behind the historical context that is imposed upon them through the classification of the "Arab Spring." The thoughts, concerns, and goals of the reformers in these countries mimic those of the Czechs in the minds of historical-conscious Americans. And, because the ideological conflict in the Cold War was between Soviet authoritarianism and American democracy, the average person jumps to the conclusion that the participants in this rebel movement hold the same values as Americans. Pew's research, then, becomes surprising for the average American.
Though it shouldn't be. Vaclav Havel wrote in the 1980s that the American model of democracy would not work for an independent Czechoslovakia. The efforts of the Prague Spring were made by independent thinkers who sought the creation of their own democracy on their own terms. Though they struggled against Soviet influence on their government, this alone did not unite them with American principles and values. However, the ideological view is simpler to digest. So Americans watch the Arab Spring with confidence, pride, and the belief that even if Gaddafi is somehow able to restore his rule, the clamoring for democracy in the Middle East is a product of the example established by the United States and the modernization of Libya is an eventual inevitability.
This leads us to the second important illuminating feature of the Pew report. Americans generally view their path to democracy as the only possible one, or at least the only desirable one. And why not? Hasn't American democracy been delivered to numerous countries throughout the world (Japan, South Korea, even Iraq) with moderate to extensive levels of success? When any country in the world subsequently calls for a more democratic form of government in the face of autocratic oppression, most Americans view this as a consequence of the fine example of liberal democracy we present. The belief dates back to Winthrop's assertion of Plymouth's status as a "City on a Hill" during the colonial period, and of course Reagan's subsequent use of the metaphor in 1984. We've never quite relinquished that belief, that somehow America is the paragon of liberal democracy. The impulse to question citizens of these countries, during times of great political turmoil and uncertainty, how they feel about the United States in response to these occurrences illustrates this continued insistence upon viewing any democratic development in the world through an American lens.
The events of the so-called "Arab Spring" are undoubtedly important and essential. Autocratic governments, in any shape or form, cannot and should not exist in a global community committed to the values of democracy and equality. When we read into these events the superiority of the American model of democracy, and insist upon our own ideological involvement in what is occurring, we obscure the truth, however. President Obama and all American citizens should welcome the democratic reforms in the Middle East that will emerge from this political movement. But we should treat these developments as indications of the unquestioned strength of our own democratic system, nor should we expect democratic governments modeled after and openly friendly to ours once these reforms are inevitably put into place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)