Once More, With Feeling

So it's been a couple of months since I last posted to this blog. A lot has happened in the world--the Macondo well has been capped and awaits completion of a relief well, the Tea Party has partied on at the expense of African Americans, the Shirley Sherrod saga played itself out, etc, etc, etc--but even though the news has not gone on summer vacation, I decided to go ahead and take a break of my own anyway.

But now I'm back for one last post before I take this show on the road a week from tomorrow night and begin my year abroad in Turkey and Ireland--and a few places in between--for which there will be a new blog (details to follow). "Ruffles and Flourishes," as its name implies, has always been and for now shall remain primarily domestically-focused. Barring some occurrence in U.S. national politics/life that absolutely demands a post, this blog will fall silent until sometime after I return to the States on June 1, 2011. For the moment, though, a few more ruffles and flourishes are in order, and I think I'll do them "10 Things"-style, since that's pretty much how I broke into this blogging business to begin with.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think I'm thrilled that the well in the Gulf has finally, finally, been capped and looks on track to be permanently "bottom-killed" by an intercept well towards the end of this month. That said, I think the catastrophe has been a real black eye for the nation and the administration (and of course BP and the oil industry) from day one, and that Washington really fumbled the on-the-ground disaster response and especially the political one. If ever there was a time when the earth itself was crying out for us to take a serious look at the feasibility and sustainability of our energy policy and the political will to at least start addressing the issue existed, June 2010 was that time. Yet, as seems to have been the case all too often with this administration and this Congress, a little resistance went a long way in keeping anything from happening, and it's going to haunt us. As Tom Friedman likes to say, "Have they no grandchildren?"

2. I think, on the subject of the Gulf, that it's critically important that we as a country stay focused on the area and its rebuilding. August 29 marks five years since the storm--the rebuilding from which, let me assure you, is a work in progress--and now the economic rug has been pulled out from under the people of the region. With spill coverage already off the front page--when it appears at all--and BP/government claims that the oil from the largest maritime spill ever was somehow magically gone just weeks after the well was capped (which is bull; dissolved oil/dispersant is still there) being promulgated instead, the greatest threat to the recovery is that it simply disappears from the national consciousness as Katrina has. It's not that we have to raise awareness, per se, since the words "Deepwater Horizon" will quickly conjure images of catastrophe in the mind of any American, but the same is true of the word "Katrina" and yet hardly anyone thinks about the storm on a daily basis any more. As after the storm, the spill generated a lot of attention, exposure, and idea-generation regarding an economically, environmentally, and culturally important region of this country that is often relegated to "forgotten coast" status. Let's take a lesson from the last disaster and keep the Gulf in our minds this time, and keep the heat turned up on BP.

3. I think this is where the rubber meets the road, Mr. President. As you're probably aware, the country--myself very much included--is less than impressed with your job performance these days. Eighteen months in, with the first batch of aides/advisers leaving and midterms coming around the corner, yours is no longer a young presidency, sir. Whatever slack you might have been cut or excuses you could have made are pretty much non-existent by now. If your presence is as toxic to Democratic candidates this midterm season as it was in the last round of gubernatorial races, that's a sign that you're in deep doo-doo.

4. I think I have two hints for the White House on that front: 1) JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! Nobody cares about your legislative or stimulatory accomplishments if they're unemployed/underemployed. While you're on the Vineyard next week, listen for the Ghost of Bill whispering "It's the economy, stupid!" and take that message to heart. 2) Stop blaming Bush already, for crying out loud! Just yesterday, the New York Times ran a story about Obama practicing his latest campaign pitch, using an extended metaphor of the country as a car that the Republicans (read: Bushies) drove into a ditch, the Obama-ites extricated, and, now that it's back on the road, the Republicans want the keys back. Yeah, whatever. Bush happened, it basically sucked, now move on. As one of my lacrosse coaches once preached, "Are you a finger or a thumb?", i.e., are you going to spend all your time pointing the your finger at the Bush years or start pointing your thumb at yourself and say, "Maybe my perception problem is my fault, not Bush's...." Let's face it, Mr. President: the county picked you over Hillary because cojones trumped skin color. So far, your metaphorical cojones seem to have been lacking from your governing style. Screw the "No-drama Obama" image; you're not playing around with the Harvard debate team anymore, you're the President of the United States. Let me be perfectly clear: neither the "Party of No" nor the Taliban seems inclined to listen to the Unruffled Professor, so kick ass. Now that might be change we could believe in.

5. I think the single scariest trend in America today, and the greatest threat to our position in the world, is the downward revision of expectations by those in charge, coupled with the currency of "Man-on-the-moon syndrome." That is, when the economy nosedives and seems reluctant to recover, Geithner and Obama start talking about the "New Normal" of reduced expectations, while the punditry spouts off about our one-time greatness, as traditionally exemplified by the Apollo program ("We put a man on the moon, so why can't we kill an oil well?"). Here's why: in life, past successes do not guarantee future ones, and the basketball team at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. should be able to grasp that better than anyone. Does Bill Belichick tell the Patriots faithful, "Hey, we used to be pretty hot shit but the going's gotten kinda hard so now we're going to call making the playoffs a victory by the metrics of the 'New Normal' for the New England Patriots"? Hell, no--he takes all the pictures of the glory days off the walls of the team's facility and tells the team that if they want to see Super Bowl pictures on the walls again, they'd better man up and win one for themselves. JFK, like a good coach, coaxed the country into accomplishing more than it thought it could. Now, Obama is telling us that we're still pretty good but that we had our time. Again, let me be perfectly clear: that is un-American, and if we can't recognize that, it means that flag pins, Orange Alerts, "God bless America"s, and all the other trappings of post-9/11 shows of patriotism--as well as the triumph of Palinesque prideful ignorance--have done a deep harm to the fabric of this nation. If the "Post-American world" is to come about, it's because we will allow ourselves to accept that as the global "new normal" and take comfort, European-style, in our past glories instead.

6. I think that if a President rides into office on the highest, whitest, glowingest moral horse in history and pitches himself as the moral compass of America, he'd better be prepared to take some stands and stick to his guns. Maureen Dowd (whom I normally can't stand) wrote a great column on this topic in yesterday's Times in regards to Obama's equivocations on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. Is it the right thing or isn't it? Constitutionally, it is, so if there's some higher moral reason why it might not be, there'd better be a damn good explanation why. Gov. Bloomberg has been crystal clear from the beginning that he wants that mosque built and that, essentially, the terrorists win if we don't build it. He's absolutely right, and Obama should be backing him to the hilt. (Hint: this might be a great time to teach a lesson to the 20% of the populace that thinks our commander in chief is a Muslim a little lesson in fact-checking and religious tolerance.)

7. I think problem number 1A (right behind the new normal) facing this country is the ascension of single-viewpoint, opinion-based "news" coverage being pitched to self-selected audiences, particularly on the far right. As one of my professors liked to say, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." The Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, Newt Gingriches, and especially Sarah Palins of the modern punditry fly in the face of this notion, presenting opinions wrapped in lies (explicit or implied) wrapped in shilling for corporate sponsors as fact. I'm not saying I think CNBC is any better or more responsible with the truth, but I do think that Fox News et al. take a particularly insidious, cynical, fear-mongering angle that is uniquely divisive and destructive (though the portion of the country that accepts Newsweek's "conventional wisdom" as gospel should bear in mind that its editor literally wrote the book on The Post-American World). Bipartisanship already looks enough like a pipe dream; the emergence of semi-factual, heavily slanted, ideologically-masturbatory single-viewpoint "news" outlets that both self-select and cater to their partisan audiences is really harming the tone and tenor of the national debate.

8. I think that's a problem that's crying out for some presidential involvement, and that the current President should have been the perfect person to deal with it honestly. Instead, when the going gets tough, he goes on The View. Yes, Obama, Glenn Beck is an ass, but crying on those ladies' shoulders about it really isn't bringing us any closer to the post-racial, post-partisan never-neverland you promised on the campaign trail. As Maureen Dowd wrote in her above-mentioned column, "What's so scary about Fox News?" You would think that a great moralist and vessel of truth should have no problem taking on some nay-sayers; you would at the very least hope that a former head of the Harvard Law Review would be able to pick up a piece of chalk of his own and show how everything on Glenn Beck's chalkboard logically reduces to lies, fallacies, and crap.

Try this, for starters: it's time somebody, anybody, stood up to all of the aforementioned talking heads and said, "Who are you?!" Seriously: who are these people? What have they done to deserve their exalted posts as shapers of a wide swath of American opinion? Gingrich hasn't been in office for half of forever, and he wasn't exactly a world-beater when he was in charge. Palin, upon discovering that her inimitable blend of willful ignorance, put-on populist mask, and Tina Fey looks resonated for some reason with the American people promptly quit her job to become a full-time "Mama Grizzly." Excuse me?! What the f--- kind of job description is that, "Mama Grizzly?" Who elected you that? Who pays your salary? Used to be, if you thought you had a message, you put it to the people by running for office. If your ideas resonated, you won your race. If they actually worked, you got re-elected. These days, if you have a message--particularly if it is aimed at the Tea Party crowd--you run away from office and into a ghost-written book deal and a slot on Fox News. That's messed up, and what's particularly messed up is how well-fortified The Punditry has convinced the country that its position is. It's long past time for The Punditry--left, right, and Tea-crazy--got taken to the woodshed and exposed for the pretentious, hot-air-blowing farce that it is, and I'm frankly shocked that Professor Post-partisan hasn't done so. Intellectually, it should be child's play to logically parse such misinformation to expose it for the garbage it is; instead, everyone's afraid of the talking heads. Even if Obama doesn't want to pay Beck an on-air visit, why not just put forward an FDR-scale jobs bill, wave it under the "Party of No"'s noses, and put the country on notice: if they say "no" to this thing, they're being worse than counter-productive. How can you vote for that? (Incidentally, how can you vote for the current GOP platform? Read it some time; you'll be shocked.) Being no-drama only plays into the hands of The Punditry: they're going to "no" and slander Obama to no end until he steps back. Like a child without parental control, they're just trying to find the limits of what he'll let them say and get away with. Draw some red lines, already, and fight back. Isn't that what great lawyers and logicians do?

9. I think the Sorry Saga of Shirley Sherrod showed made everybody involved look bad, including the country as a whole. It showed how the far right, operating without limits, is wont to willfully twist the truth; it showed how the left, from the NAACP to the administration, is running scared from the fear-and-misinformation-mongering and won't bother to fact-check, either; and it showed us, as an op-ed that I believe was written by Gail Collins said at the time, that Obama still hasn't gotten his finger on the "black thing." (Paradoxical as this might sound, he doesn't; as one of the most perceptive and prophetic Post op-eds I read last year around election time noted, we have a black President, not an African-American one. Without the history of slavery and the unfulfilled promise of 40 acres and a mule in his background, Obama might be the product of the union of an African and an American, but he does not share the cultural heritage of the African-American community.)

But I've already hammered on all those points, so the one I want to make here is this: what the Sherrod Saga really illustrated is a worrisome look at the emerging division of American society along precisely the lines Mrs. Sherrod was speaking about in the speech from which the vignette that got her fired was lifted. As her experience with the farmers taught her, Mrs. Sherrod noted that the real divisions in this country aren't of race, but of class. Often, it is easy to mistake one for the other, but at the end of the day it is class, the Haves vs. the Have-Nots, that marks the boundary in the increasingly stratified society in which we live today. Middle America and the coasts are barely on speaking terms; Red States fundamentally don't understand Blue ones, and on and on and on. Moreover, the divisions are widening: as the Times noted recently, it's harder to find a Future Farmer of America or a 4-H member on the campus of an elite American university these days than it is to find an ethnic minority student. With the confirmation of Elena Kagan, there are now zero Supreme Court Justices who are not Ivy League-educated. Whatever the racial/gender/religious breakdown, the true diversity of the court is of school colors, rather than class or life experience. Hence, in many ways, the rise of the hated "Beltway Insiders," the propensity of yacht-toting billionaires to run as outsiders to get inside said Beltway, and the Gilded Age 2.0 blind trust in industry robber barons to do the right thing in the total absence of government regulation. We got out of the first Gilded Age when T.R. realized that there is a place for government in society and a place for regulation in industry, and the same will have to happen now. In order to do so, Wall St. and Main St. will have to come back into conversation with one another, and the country will have to recognize and accept that its Future Famers, its future captains of industry, and its future political leaders all have different and valuable viewpoints, and that all deserve a seat at the table.

10. I think that's enough of ruffles; it's time to close on a more positive flourish. (If the previous Things I Think I Think froze your liberal blood, I hope you're still with me--this is the light at the end of the tunnel.) In criticizing the Obama administration, in no way am I rooting for it to fail. Quite to the contrary, I would very much like to see it succeed and fulfill the promise that so many Americans, myself included, saw in it during the campaign. I'm still not sure why the smart, incisive, motivational Candidate Obama disappeared and the no-drama-to-a-fault President Obama emerged after Inauguration Day, but I'd really like to see the candidate's personality make a comeback and inspire the country to pick itself up and get moving. Of course some campaign promises have been unfulfilled; that's the nature of the beast, especially when pre-election expectations are so high. That said, I think the major problem with the administration so far is that it has allowed itself to lose authorship of its own narrative and message. Yes, he was dealt a shitty hand and yes, many people were excited to be done with Bush, but what hasn't been fulfilled is our excitement for Obama. I'll remember making the spontaneous run from the Hilltop to the White House to celebrate on election night 2008 for the rest of my life, and I would very much like to remember the election I was celebrating along with hundreds of other young people in D.C. to have marked the beginning of a great and transformational presidency.

While Candidate Obama emerged to a desperate-enough electorate with a relatively ambiguous pie-in-the-sky message and not surprisingly became an vehicle for millions of hopes and dreams, I think what's been missing so far has been the sense that all of the fervor that led up to the election was felt or is felt by the White House. More than half the nation--and huge numbers of its young and independent voters--were head over heels for the junior senator from Illinois, and now that he's in the highest office in the land, we'd like to see him show us some love (or any emotion, really) in return. We got excited about you, Mr. President--don't be so cool in the name of bipartisanship or some such thing that you don't harness what's left of that excitement.

Finally, while I pointed to a lot that I see as flawed or worrisome in society today, that doesn't mean I think the system is irrevocably broken or that America's time has passed or any such thing. I do think that we're in a pretty good-size pickle, but it's not like that's never been the case before, and the country has so far managed to pull through its moments of crisis and self-doubt, usually emerging stronger for the experience on the other side. I also think that we're on the cusp of a time of great change and reckoning, as economics, politics, demographics, the environment, and technology as we've known them for most of modern history are all at momentous tipping points, and navigating how, when, and where each of these factors tips is going to take a concerted effort on the part of public- and private-sector leaders the world over.

In the course of this change, it is vital that we recall President Kennedy's admonition to ask what we can do for our country (and the world), but it is also important that we do ask what our government can do for us. This should not be wheedling for entitlements or other handouts, but rather a legitimate effort to offer constructive criticism to a government that has come to seem in many ways too ossified for its own good--or that of the people it nominally exists to serve. That is one of the great strengths and values of American democracy that must not be allowed to die out; the First Amendment, in the hands of informed, concerned, and activist citizens, is a mighty thing indeed. It's time we as citizens--future farmers and future Ivy Leaguers alike--took some time to get to know one another, get to know the issues, and then take some responsibility for our government. America has always had a vast, youthful energy, but we do have some intellectual growing-up to do. Enough with the championing of false populism and willful ignorance. Stupid isn't sexy; it's just plain stupid. We have every right to want our politicians to be coherent and able to converse with the common man, but why not want them to be smart, too? Moreover, why should we so undervalue and understate our own intelligence as to choose the candidate with the lowest perceived intellectual wattage on the ballot?

At my brother Taylor's graduation from high school this June, the faculty address was given by an English teacher, Mr. Adam Cluff, that both of us had as sophomores. In his talk, Mr. Cluff quoted the character Prior from Angels in America, who says that "The world only spins forward." Mr. Cluff said that he agreed with Prior: even when negative forces try to spin the world backwards, they may slow it down, but in the end, the world always spins forward. Obviously, the point has stuck with me (now I'll have to read the play myself), and I agree with Mr. Cluff's analysis that while the negative forces seem to have been in ascendancy lately, they will not win out over what Lincoln termed "the better angels of our nature." With that, I'll let Prior deliver the final "flourish" before I go abroad: "The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come."