President Obama, and an Old Familiar Tug of War

When reading a friend's simple Facebook status, I was inspired to ponder and write this long blog article.  

In addition to a remarkable eloquence that draws you in with a sense of compelling non-elitism, President Obama's ability to combine idealistic values with a pragmatic emphasis is perhaps unmatched in the current political class.  This second characteristic is significant, not least because frustrating tensions between idealism and pragmatism are nothing new.  And such tensions have oft-frequently weighed down on past presidents, advocates/activists, and many others among both those seeking change and those seeking to perpetuate the status quo.  

In the 1950's, Eisenhower as president sounded the horn on the increasing convergence of national security and economic interests in what he termed the "Military/Industrial Complex."  Yet Eisenhower, in his experience as a general in WWII and later on as the second Cold War-based U.S. Commander-in-Chief, 

must have realized the significance and implications that U.S.-Soviet competition for world influence would present to him, his Soviet counterparts, and each other's respective allies.  From the very beginning of these newly-erupting tensions, these implications included armed conflict, and just as important: espionage, counter-intelligence, and covert ops.  The CIA's and British Intelligence's involvement in the overthrow of an unfavored yet democratically-elected Mossadegh was just as significant in Iran and the Middle East as the place the Korean War held for the Korean Peninsula and Far East Asia during the same time period.  It can be argued that both of these events have legacies that have shaped the contours and substance of their immediate targets lasting well into the present day.  These two cases have similar objectives in common.  Besides the stated fear of culturally losing Iran to the Eastern Bloc, there was also the very real anger at Mossadegh Government's move to nationalize the British-dominated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in a proclaimed act of economic and political self-determination.  Meanwhile, the Korean War was the first test venue of flying jets and using them in aerial combats.  And they were both, to varying degrees, proxy engagements between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.  Yet, these two cases have end up very differently: South Korea (the ally to be protected from an invading North) has generally prospered, with the exception of North Korea; while Iran has partly found, and partly contributed to, itself moving along a course where it remains internationally shunned.  Neither the U.S. nor its principal Cold War allies are solely responsible for these outcomes; they have however played pivotal roles.  Nor have the two cases been only the cases emerging from the pages of Cold War, but they are among the first to perhaps play out contradictions in a difficult and testing modern time period.       

Jimmy Carter's presidency was seen as a breath of fresh air in the wake of Nixon's Watergate disaster and amid revelations of Nixon's paranoia-induced massive wiretapping and surveillance.  [President Gerald Ford's efforts towards healing the nation and his public demeanor and stature as Washington outsider of sorts was certainly admirable to the public mood of the time, but that wasn't enough to salvage his position especially given Ford's decision to pardon his ex-President.]  Furthermore, Carter's public electoral campaign and presidential emphasis on humanitarian values was so pronounced that his term has been noted as the "human rights presidency."  Above all, the cornerstone of the shine of his presidency lay in success at helping to broker the first-ever peace process for the Middle East (Camp David Accords/Egypt-Israel Treaty). Despite these high points, Carter's single term ended with disaster abroad (i.e. the Iranian Hostage Crisis) and continuing debilitating inflation at home [the argued culprit here was especially the charge that he hadn't moved fast enough to deregulate the economy].  Former President Carter has been for expanding humanitarian work since his departure from national political office; and, though not without controversy (some of it needlessly hyped), he has seemingly managed to continue to set the bar high among members of subsequent political classes after him running into the present.      

In the early 1990s President early Bill Clinton's and First Wife Hillary Clinton's efforts at health care--among other intiatives--re-energized the country with new found hope in social/economic issues in a way that is perhaps up until then unparalleled since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal program.  Yet Clinton was bogged down and frustrated by many elements, most notably a hostile Republican-controlled Congress. [Remember Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms?].  Further compounding his frustration lay in media seemingly more interested in his Oval Office intimacy than engaging him in his actual policy direction.  While Reagan was known as the Great Communicator and Bush I as the man who saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (and by extension, the rest of Arabian Peninsula & the Arab World) from Saddam, Clinton was perhaps known as a Great Negotiator or Great Bridger (or, according to some displeased Liberals, the Great Compromiser) of sorts.  He's the president who brought Don't Ask/Don't as a middle-road compromise between Liberals and Conservatives (even to the chagrin of a moderate Conservative in the military, future Sectary of State Colin Powell, who reportedly resigned from his then-Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff position in protest).  Clinton's also the president who---recognizing the opportunities of interconnectivity and growth brought about by the incoming new wave of Globalization to sweep the world, once the Soviet Union became fully relegated to the annals of history---championed the international trade agreement mechanisms (NAFTA), embraced the WTO (which had been transformed from GATT), and did much to deregulate the financial industry to the concern of culturally and politically liberal allies.  

Despite all of this apparent across-the-aisle outreach, he was still deeply challenged (especially domestically) by his Conservative detractors, and the well-known impeachment and media frenzy ensued.

I honestly don't know what to make of the much-disastrous eight years of the previous Bush II Administration in terms of analyzing the idealism-pragmatism tug of war.  Maybe I am hesitant to do so because perhaps my understandings of idealism and pragmatism, and especially of idealism, are so drastically dissimilar to many Neoconservative views.  Maybe it is also because I am confused by the stark gulf of contrasts between Neoconservative publicly uttered idealism and the realism of conditions (especially political, economic, and diplomatic) on the ground that the held idealism was supposed to smooth over.     

Even Obama, despite his impressive command of words and his profound intelligence and grasp of political/socio-economic environments---and in spite of repeated efforts to reach across the aisle---has been frustrated time and time again by lack of cooperation (to put it mildly and diplomatically) from not only across the aisle but also from some leading members of his own party.  Added to this is a new strange phenomenon he has been facing of anti-this and anti-that which has snagged many segments of American society---from Muslim/Arab Americans to Latino immigrants to health care expansion to the GLBT community---in a vicious dragnet and forced-out steam of hype, phobia, anger, hyperbole.  And of course, the continuing serious problems in stabilizing and rebuilding the mess that has been characterizing post-9/11 Afghanistan, the still-somewhat-uncertainty of Iraq, the draining stalemate (to put it mildly) over Israel/Palestine, as well as continuing civil rights concerns (such as FBI approaches with Muslim/Arab Americans) and delay of fulfilling some campaign promises (such as taking the last steps/phases of closing down Gitmo) are way too much on a single person's plate.  The resurgence of the Republican party (now reinvigorated by Tea Partiers) in last November's elections not only accentuates the importance of opportunities missed by Democrats, but also should highlight disturbing concerns and reservations about what turbulence may come---even among moderate and establishment Republicans who care to ponder.  Opportunities were missed due to many, perhaps intertwining, reasons: lack of sufficient resolve among some crucial segments of the Democratic leadership; continual discord directed by many Republicans; and unchallenged hype/distortion created by some of their quarters; sluggish improvements in inherited economic and other conditions which possibly denied longer-term perspectives over proposed initiatives, among others.              

What we see in all these examples is the great energy (but also great obstruction) in the idealism-pragmatism tug of war.  What we also see is the inevitability of that tug of war, whose dynamics can molded into a working platform or be deliberately exacerbated by short-term or foolish selfishness of action.  It is very hard (and politically suicidal, many in the Washington Beltway might conventionally add) to rise above the entrenched unwisdom of conventional systems of interactions and policy-making, not least because such dynamics and modes help to shape and solidify the rules of the game of setting the agenda, defining the issues, even creating the standards/criteria of analysis and evaluation---no matter who initiated unwisdom and lack of foresight.  Which makes the need to avoid---or at least, minimize---the pushes and and pulls between (considerations regarding the "right thing to do" and "what could be presented and accepted as workable") all the more pronounced.  Well-justified euphoria can be ripped apart by even the slightest doubt in the face of relatively-less-volatile circumstances, or by enormous sincere and heartfelt momentum that is generated only to not fully materialize in word and deed.  

In less than two years, President Obama has proven to be the "man of the hour" and the "man of the moment" for his electrifying energy, his passionate courage, his sober conviction.  But as hopeful as I have been swept to be, the euphoria could be temporary band-aid as much as it can be the signal of a new light to be lit.  Of course, things could've been much worse; yet there is as much as, if not more, potential still unrealized.  The complicated interactions, plights, drama, and dynamics of the problems, challenges, and the good luck and the misfortunes, etc are cannot be simplified to a specific game-winning shot in a sports video.  Neither do real-life "shots" boil down to a relatively straightforward game-plan and counter-plan.  Nor can the real-life "spectator crowd" simply settle for a few plays during game.  I understand that things take time, dedicated effort, patience and perseverance.  And wisdom at some point is bound to be acquired.  But they also take constant pressuring and being receptive to pressure, mixed with a delicate balancing act between compromising on a given stance and insistence on a stance.  All the while realizing that the wrong compromise can set one back years or undo a lot of what good has been done, just as much as the wrong insistence can block one for years from moving forward.  Big and bolder constructive steps need to be taken, and bigger and bolder constructive support needs to be given.       

We All Need Mirrors: A Response to the "Two Americas."

In the discussion over the "two Americas," one of the basic premises of Ross Douthat's op-ed article is that the relationship between a minority/immigrant group and the American society overall are based upon give-and-take/compromise/exchanges of contributions, etc.  In inter-group relationships in society, this is a very natural demand and dynamic, without which the society may not function properly.

Now, the question is not whether this dynamic should exist.  To pretend or believe that it should not exist would cause a disservice not only to the Non-Muslim majority but also to the Muslim minority/immigrant group.  But, as with many other minority/immigrant issues,  this one needs to be handled prudently and delicately.  Of course, there is merit in the concern that tones expressed regarding this dynamic could reveal an unease or an outright xenophobia.  Even so, perhaps there is a logical reasoning to at least be willing to consider multiple angles and present them for a fuller evaluation.

The question [---and this is part where the author perhaps should have been more thoughtful, and one in which I find the tone troubling---] should be over the PARAMETERS of the dynamic of give-and-take/ compromise/ exchange of contributions/etc.  In a similar note, I am puzzled by why the author chose to use the word "assimilation" instead of "integration."  For "assimilation" lies closer to a "blending in" to form a more cohesive whole [consider how a soup is made, with all the individual elements being almost rendered variously indistinguishable].  While "integration" moves more towards a coming together of diversified parts to form a more cohesive whole [consider how a salad is made; all its separate elements form a unit, but they are individually distinguishable even in the same bowl].  Both integration and assimilation have just about the same objective/end result in mind, with markedly different paths (and the different paths/methods can have different implications for both minorities/immigrants and the overall society).

I am struck by the Douthat's apparent negligence (or willful omission, at worst) of the [mostly] tragic history of Native American Indians in what became the Continental U.S.  I am struck also by the inconsistency in reasoning and tone this attitude could invite.  The potential exists for an inconsistency of standards that invite one of set of parameters in the analysis over the relationship between the majority Native Indians and predominantly Anglo-Saxon settlers in one (historical) case, and standards that invite another set of diametrically opposite parameters in the current context of Muslims in a predominantly Anglo-Saxon America.  

By almost every measure, the true indigenous inhabitants of the Americas (both South and North) were tribal groups like the Cheyenne, Sioux, Shawnee, Cherokee, etc.  Even by the time of the American Revolution (1775), the European settlers (mostly Anglo-Saxon) and their descendants were still much "relatively new" in comparison to the Natives.  Indeed, the first permanent major English settlement in the Continental U.S., Jamestown, Virginia, was established in 1607.  Much of the same could be said about the American settlers who migrated westward of the Mississippi River, and the Indians who suffered later on.

Had the author lived during the those critical historical periods, what ideas would he have penned then for Native-Settler relations concerning the basic premise(s) upon which he insists for contemporary American society's relationship with Muslims now?  Certainly, as a writer looking back in time, he would've noticed that the analysis requires a different perspective into demographic compositions and dynamics from which to work.  Almost by parallel, he would have characterized that past society as being a narrative of "the two Native Indian Americas."  

In such case, "the first Native America" would be reserved for the unconditionally accepting Native America which opened its arms wide to Plymouth and Jamestown colonists.  As newcomers in a distant and strange land the early colonists likely would not (and could not) have survived, owing to devastating epidemics of foreign illnesses (to which they were not immune) and to famine.  Indeed, mortality rates were relatively high during those first years.  Indigenous tribes' support and goodwill thus were crucial to those colonists' well-being, and by extension to the enduring establishment of the thirteen remaining majority-Anglo-Saxon colonies (the earliest foundation of what the U.S. as it is today).  The "second Native America" would have consisted of tribes that began to distrust and resist the settler colonists.  Under such context, would he have been sympathetic to his characterizations of "the second America" to which he sympathetically exhibits in this article?  What would have been his attitude to other crucial turning points in U.S. history which also had a profound impact upon Native Americans, such as "Manifest Destiny?"  

  

A thoroughly thoughtful appreciation of this history still casts a long and deep shadow and stain on our national consciousness.  A shadow and stains from which we still have to apparently fully learn.   Seeking to be fully aware of seemingly callous "adoption" of Native American property should cause us to stop for a moment and think deeply.  The standards of tolerance and mutual respect as defined by "the first America" would contrast sharply with prominently-negative historical treatment of Native Americans.  It may perhaps even contrast with some contemporary considerations of them.     

For example, apparently among the most prominent and enduring conscious imagery of Native Americans widespread throughout the U.S. today are those used in professional sports teams and logos.  At face value, these images hardly say anything about the legacy and history of Native American cultures, societies, rituals, beliefs, customs, or contributions to the North American landscape.  I am not suggesting that anyone who has even so much attended or watched a major sport like American football or baseball game is complicit in this regard.  Nor do I hold anything against professional sports.   

But I do think it is worthy to pause and ask a few questions.  How did names---like the Cleveland Indians, Washington Redskins, and Atlanta Braves---come to be used (in name and physical image) in professional sports industries?  Do/did Native Americans object to commercial uses of their likenesses and to the commercial uses of variations thereof?  Were they to object would we stop engaging in such use?  Would we develop ways to compensate them for the use of these likenesses, and if so how?  And even if they do not/did not object, how might many of us feel if the situation was put in reverse?  With scores of Native Americans mimicking non-Native Indian likenesses in sports uniforms, trademark/logos, and so on, made to look like Anglo-American settlers?  [Of course, such behavior pales in comparison to other treatments of the Native American narratives such as portrayals in Old Western movies and inexpensive Old Western novels popular in the time period.  I point this one out as a relative measurement and because of its ongoing use.]  

          

Perhaps Douthat does not believe or think that allusions to historical realities (and residual issues) dealing with Native Americans apply in the case of America's treatment of Muslims in the United States.  Regardless, this is an argument that has been made in other minority and immigrant cases.  People from across the southern border will 'change' the America as we know it (assumed for the worse)---politically, cultural, economically, and socially.  And so they must be fiercely and aggressively resisted.  Or, they must 'assimilate'--that is, extending Douthat's tone and definitions---abide by the rules of the "Second America" so that they are, by the grace of the "First America," accepted among Americans' ranks.  But there was also a time when Anglo-American settlers and European explorers were different and alien to the American continents all together.  Undoubtedly American Indians faced many of the same questions we do today, and the collectivity of their responses are a diversity of resistances mixed in with accommodations.  

But the America as we currently know it has been different from a few centuries ago when Native tribes dominated its landscape; it was the non-Natives, not the indigenous tribes, who have "prevailed" in shaping most of the "character" of present-day United States.  And on the whole it was mostly the non-Natives, not the indigenous tribes, who insisted on others following their lead and example.  Today's "Natives" include a mix that, collectively, are vastly different from pre-colonization's tribes.  I realize that a discussion of immigration is far too complex to be covered in any summarized points here.  But there are (worrying) undertones I find in some immigration arguments that are strikingly similar to the characterizations presented in Douthat's "two Americas" lenses.        

If anything, all of us are in need of mirrors.  The author's article started off promising.  He has a right to point out that sensitivity on the part of Muslims should be part-and-parcel of decisions over the Park51 community center.  Yet the article's preachy mood carried a seeming lack of internal mirror that, in espousing and cheering all the qualities of "the two Americas," rendered it instead more disappointing than enlightening.

Some Thoughts on the "Ground Zero Mosque" Issue

As the mosque issue is still simmering, I thought it well to lay down thoughts on some of its dimensions.  I will try to be as brief as I can. 

(1) Perhaps it wasn't the wisest decision to have the proposed center near Ground Zero.  The location has a lot of sensitivity to it.  Out of concern and respect for the feelings of all who fell that day (and their families), it is a valid point that Muslims should take note of and weigh it in heavily with other considerations before pushing through with the proposed center.  There is still legitimate concern that the proposed center's location can be offensive particularly to the survivors and families of victims of 9/11. There is a possibility that Americans who generally and normally have no ill-will towards Muslims/Arabs can be hurt by the location of the proposed center.  Yet, it remains to be seen whether a calm undertones can endure throughout the discussion, or whether they will give way to deceitful sensationalism and exploiting hype will prevail at the end.  And that is a question whose answer does not seeming comforting at the moment.   

(2) LAW AND CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS: this issue has the potential to be a test of sorts for the values that we deeply cherish.

In terms of the law, it has developed into a First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment issue.  The main question here will involve the endurance of the Bill of Rights in the face of controversy, as pointed out above.  Our country has faced similar situations (dilemmas?) before, and I am confident that the endurance of the law and the principles of civil rights, at least from a technical legal and jurisprudential standpoint, will be once again reasserted. 

As for discussions over the cultural sphere, we often talk about how diverse our country is, how we pride of this diversity, and how much we find strength in it.  All of the pride and feelings we have about the blessings of our diversity, I believe and see, are genuine sentiments and realities that we truly embrace and act upon. 

Yet, here too exists the potential for a test being brought by the center issue.  The test (and implications) here could be a lot trickier and more difficult.  I am hesitant to think of this aspect, because some of the questions that comes to my mind is this: whether the proposed center--- in the proposed location, and with the existing climate in which it is being received and discussed---will be a test on how well Muslims have integrated and been accepted into the American fabric (socially, culturally, etc).  Because similar incidents (of anti-mosque opposition) have sprung up before and alongside the one in New York City, there is a possibility that the debate over the "Ground Zero mosque" is much more deeply than just being about the sensitivity of Ground Zero location.  Noting the virulence of these developments, a Washington Post article observed, "the intense feelings driving that [NYC center] debate have surfaced in communities from California to Florida in recent months, raising questions about whether public attitudes toward Muslims have shifted."  These developments have included anti-Muslim protests, by groups such as Operation Save America, across the country.        

There is still some lingering and growing mis-perception, mis-information/ predominantly selective media coverage, opportunistic smearing, and unfavorable views (prejudice)---in addition to rising discrimination practices and doubt---on part of some in the American public regarding Muslims/Islam (see here, here, and here).  Though not frighteningly rampant, these trends---including physical attacks against property---do not appear to be backing down in occurrences or strength.  In such a polarized (and polarizing) environment (for example: see this, this, this, this, and this), there would be concern (for example: see here, here) that the dynamics of exchange on the mosque/community center issue could mesh in (examples see here , here, here, here) with much broader behaviors and attitudes bearing hostility towards Muslims and Islam in America.    

On the other hand, it may turn out that however this issue is resolved (i.e. whether the center will be built in the proposed location) may strongly reinforce the diversity we have come to cherish about our country.  From a broader perspective, it is possible any lingering concerns about the full integration of American Muslims will be put to rest as unfounded.  In light of this and other similar road bumps the nation has faced, this broader perspective notion however is still very far from ascertainable.  

We can learn from controversies and difficult and sensitive issues (even those that involving diversity as an aspect/dimension).  And it is possible for us to gain deeper insights about ourselves as a society from probing such questions and dimensions, and to work on being more constructive.  But, of course, in dealing with this and similar areas we would need to be completely honest, civil and fair with ourselves and with others---whether we are Muslim or Non-Muslim.  Greater mutual measured communication and outreach, not re-entrenchment and receding, is needed.  

(3) THE POLITICAL FOOTBALL/ HOT POTATO: Finally, it is deeply alarming that the discussion over the issue has been hyped up into some political football or hot potato right before upcoming midterm elections.  Prominent politicians---including former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich comparing the center to a Nazi sign at a holocaust museum or a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor---as well as Republican candidates in gubernatorial and Congressional races have weighed in on the center/mosque debate.  [Even some 'embattled' Democrats have sought to distance themselves from the hype, as for example how Senator Reid's public break with President Obama's stance on the issue is reported to have played out.]  


We have seen this kind of distorted and dirty politicking that scapegoated Muslims and Arabs and that used them as impersonified pawns before in recent memory.  Remember the past presidential election, when Obama was branded a Muslim, Arab, or whatnot, and from there he was linked to being sympathetic to extremists---suggesting by implication that he couldn't be a loyal American?  Remember how the fact that his middle name happened to be Hussein was exploited in a similar manner?  Remember how McCain fell into the trap when he responded with something along the lines of "no, he's a good family man," in reply to a question fielded from a rally about whether Obama was Muslim or Arab? (In a tight and heated election season, a few courageous Republican voices spoke up against that nonsense, most notably Colin Powell.)

It is also disturbing that some sectors of the media and of the lobbying world have taken it upon themselves to exploit, conflate, and distort the issue.  These segments have apparently been at the forefront of the  anti-NYC center opposition and opposition to smaller mosque/Islamic center projects; have been working to influence politicians, lawmakers, government agencies, and the general public towards their views of Islam in America and of Muslim extremists; and have contributing to political campaigns.  It is also astonishing to see the phrases being thrown around by these bloggers and pundits---echoes of which have long predated the major thrusting of the Ground Zero episode into the spotlight.  Phrases and suggestions include an accusation against the proposed NYC center of being a victory mosque to celebrate murder, and more general exhortations such as the need to "stop Islamization of America" or to fight "creeping Sharia" in the country, or to "keep America safe."  [Much nastier comments about Islam, Prophet Mohamed, Muslims, and the like have been made by these bloggers and pundits---some as vile as the claims that "Hitler was inspired by Islam," that there are no moderates among Muslims---by extension, implicating all Muslims and Islam itself as immortal enemies of the free world, and a denial that American Muslims can be loyal citizens.]  


Sometimes I can't help but wonder if they are trying to exploit feelings and legitimate concerns, and couple it with a selective framing of this issue (and of others), in a manner as if to turn the issue(s) and their opinions into a referendum on the presence of Muslims/ Islam in the U.S.  Whenever a controversy or difficult issue brews, we can count on these people (examples: here, here) to make it even more fuzzy and unresolvable ...