Will the Real Ronald Reagan Please Stand Up

Short post drawing your attention to a great piece that asks that we reexamine our love affair with Ronald Reagan. We need to get beyond the mythology and our adolescent love affair with a man who did a great deal of harm here and abroad. This is particulalrly important now as we begin to see the long-term ramifications of his misguided policies. W was right about at least one thing - history does provide the final verdict.

And for some information about the horrors of the Reagan administration's legacy on HIV and AIDS, see this piece.

Thinking about Reagan inspired me to write a story about the influence seeing Reagan speak had on me as a child, and how it continues to impact me today. I have told this story many times so figured I should write it up. Enjoy.

How Reagan Accidentally Shaped My Politics

My first memory of having any interest in politics and/or political figures is seeing Ronald Reagan speak in 1984. Reagan was on the campaign trail, seeking reelection for a second term in office. I was in 5th grade, my first year in public school. We took a fieldtrip to hear the incumbent President speak, and I was blown away.

Like many others, I fell under the spell of the kindly Grandfather persona Reagan put forth, and swore I would be a Republican for life. I came home excited to tell my parents of my newfound love of Reagan and interest in politics.

My memory of seeing Reagan speak is today nothing more than a memory of being at a particular place while an event was occurring. I have no idea what he speak of, or any recollection of details of the day – the weather, the setting, and so on. But my memory of what happened in my home, with my father, is crystal clear.

My mom wasn’t home, so I figure I’d just tell my father my story first, and then repeat it later to my mother. This excited me, as I wanted to tell the story of my day of acquiring wisdom from the President as many times as possible.

I remember the transformation of the look on my father’s face as I progressed through my story. When I began speaking my father had an inquisitive, curious look, indicative of a genuine desire to understand what had made his 9 year-old son so excited. That look morphed to disappointment, anger, and finally downright horror as I went on and on about how amazing Reagan was and how I was only going to vote for people like him, Republicans, when I grew up. How could anyone with half a brain do otherwise?

Though I sensed feelings coming from my father that didn’t match the emotions I was feeling, I didn’t stop to ask about the source of his emotional cues. Maybe he was reacting to something else on his mind? Maybe I was just misreading his emotions. I became a lot smarter hearing Reagan speak, but I still had my limits. Whatever. I was filled with a sense of euphoria I had never felt and assumed his demeanor couldn’t possibly be related to my excitement. I mean, what else but pride and excitement could any parent feel as her/his child explained how they had just gained an understanding of what the world was all about? And this realization came from my exposure to a man who had, and was going to continue to, change the world and make it a better place for us Americans. And really, all I was doing was relaying facts – Ronald Reagan was as close to god as any human could hope to be and I was committed to advancing the cause of the Republican Party and from this day forward would dedicate my life to this end.

My father let me finish my story, exhibiting a patience I look back on with envy. I know I could not have sat through the entirety of such a terrifying tale. When I was finished, my father immediately stood up.

We were in my parents’ room, a space I seldom occupied. The only time I ever spent in this room was during early morning wakeups and for conversations about my latest behavior problems, the latter being much more frequent. Being in this space for this moment conveyed a sense of validation to me. I thought I had something important to talk about, something usually reserved only for grown-ups, and I was right. My dad said so.

I was sitting at the foot of my parents’ bed, on the corner closest to the desk chair where my father had sat and listened to my tale. We were only 3-4 feet away from each other, but that wasn’t close enough for the conversation that was about to transpire.

My father stood for a few seconds, perhaps trying to collect his thoughts, perhaps rethinking the whole public school thing; he took a couple steps in my direction as he moved forward and to his right. He left his chair, positioned so we sat in front of each other, on a bit of a diagonal, allowing us to look forward as we sat face-to-face. He swung around to the foot of the bed, choosing to sit directly next to me. Actually, next to me doesn’t describe the scene accurately.

In that moment my father came as close as possible to sitting on me, while still sitting next me. The large difference in our weights resulted in my sliding even closer than if we had been seated on a hard surface. His body acted likes a tractor beam I had seen on space ships in Star Wars movies. I was in his range and there was no escape.

We sat side-by-side, he to my left. He extended his right arm around me, placing it on my right shoulder. The tracking beam/arm combo had me trapped. He started by telling me he loved me. I have since learned the effectiveness of this rhetorical trick. This is a common and effective practice employed by parents when beginning a conversation with a child where you are about to explain to that child that the world is not what they think. It is admirable that they are thinking of such matters as a child, and it is because of this stated love that you feel compelled to drop this knowledge bomb.

My father started by telling me that we can’t believe everything politicians tell us. And, he said, this is true for all politicians. They have to get elected to get and/or keep their job, and in order to get elected they have to say things that people want to hear. So, sometimes they lie. And sometimes they don’t exactly lie, but they say things in a manner that sounds better than what they’re really saying. But more often than not they lie. And Reagan, it seemed to my dad, had a special way of doing this that not only made lies, no matter how much evidence of their falsehood, seem like they were the only possible truth. He then went on to more substantive issues, namely money, with a little bit of talk about race mixed in.

He explained to me that most Republicans care more about rich people than they do all people, and Reagan was the king of this kind of care. He said that one of the things that Presidents do is help to decide what kind of laws we have. And for the past four years, Reagan had made clear through the laws he championed and the rhetoric he espoused that if we take really good care of rich people, they’ll take really good care of the rest of us. If we just let rich people keep more of their money, they’ll spend it in ways that helps everyone. I’m not sure if you used the term “trickle down economics” or not, but the message was pretty clear with or without the name.

This sounded good to me. As a middle-class kid in 1980s America I was inundated with messages that being rich was what it was all about. But then my father explained to me that this philosophy, whether you think it sounds good or not, had not proven to match its stated aims when put into practice. Rich people were getting to keep more of their money, which meant they got even richer. But the benefits the rest of us were supposed to see had yet to materialize.

He then explained that even though this was the case, Reagan continued to make sure that the rich got to keep more of their money. Poor people got poorer, and folks like us stayed about the same. This didn’t make sense to me. How could such a benevolent man do such a thing?

My dad went on to explain in further detail how politicians say things over and over to people in hopes that this repetition will make people believe what the politicians are saying. Even if the things that happen in people’s lives tell them what they’re hearing is false, they believe it anyway. It’s a trick of sorts, but it works.

He went on to talk about more about issues related to poverty and how it didn’t seem like Reagan really cared much about poor people or poverty. He certainly wasn’t doing anything about it. One thing he was doing was convincing people that Black people on welfare wanted to be on welfare instead of working, and that most of them cheat welfare so they can get more money. He described to me what welfare was and how no one, Black, White, or otherwise, would want to be poor.

The conversation went on for a while. My father told me that we can’t judge a politician or make a decision on whether we like him or her just because of their party affiliation. We have to judge each person as an individual. This sounded reasonable. I said I guess that meant that he voted for some Republicans and some Democrats. He laughed and said that every once in a while that might happen, but not too often. While he does follow his own advice of looking at everyone individually, this usually produces the same result of voting for the person with a D next to their name.

There were other topics like the propping up of foreign regimes, not doing enough to make progress on issues of racism and sexism, and the demonizing of Jews that we discussed. But what resonated the loudest with me was the issue of money and class, and how a person could run a country with apparently little regard for the many and much for the few, all with a movie star smile on his face.

The picture my father painted was stark and real; it was not candy-coated. Some might think such a portrayal would make a child disillusioned, feeling helpless to make the world better. Instead of turning me off from politics, this stoked my interests and set me on a path of critical thinking. I never took things at face value, instead I was always questioning. This part caused some problems as a child, but I think in the end it was worth it.

When I tell this story, I sometimes jokingly say that this was the beginning of my indoctrination to the politics of the left. But there is some truth in that statement, and I don’t think it’s all that bad.

We constantly indoctrinate our children with our words and deeds, though not always in explicitly defined moments such as the one I describe with my father. But we enact a life that tells our children what is right in matters ranging from religion, to what we eat, to how we treat each other. Chief among these is what we teach about how we accept or do not accept our civic responsibilities to be informed, critical, and participatory members of our Democratic Republic.

I began indoctrinating my children in the gospel of the left from the moment they were born. I hope in doing so I don’t set them on a predictable path of rejection and rebellion, leading to them joining the Young Conservatives, or some other such group. I guess if I begin to see that happening I can always sit them down for some good old-fashioned purposeful indoctrination. Like father, like son.

Gay rights, Bigfoot, and The Lochness Monster

Yesterday was a big day in the fight for the equal protection of human and civil rights for all persons in the United States. We’re not there yet; every victory should be cause for celebration, but we should realize we have a long way to go still and not congratulate ourselves too much.

In case you haven’t heard, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed legislation on Wednesday that legalized gay marriage in the granite sate. The law will take effect January 1, 2010. In passing this legislation New Hampshire becomes the sixth state to open the doors to marriage to folks who are not heterosexual. Currently Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa are the only states where gay marriage is legal. Vermont passed legislation legalizing gay marriage that will become law September 1, and Maine has passed similar legislation that takes effect September 14.

Several states have passed laws that do, or soon will, recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. New Jersey, Washington and Oregon recognize same-sex unions, but not marriage. There is a bill making its way through the state legislature that, if passed, would legalize gay marriage in New York. Washington, D.C. recognizes same-sex domestic partnerships, as do Nevada and California. And D.C. recently passed legislation that recognizes the legality of gay marriages performed in other states. Contrary to popular belief, Hawaii does not recognize gay marriage or same-sex civil unions. They do, however, allow for two unmarried people (not just heteros) to register as being in a “reciprocal beneficiary relationship”. This is said to entitle the individuals to some rights and benefits of marriage. The word some is the problem.

I frequently post articles related to gay marriage, homophobia, and heterosexism on facebook. Facebook being what it is, these stories are then viewed by all my facebook friends. But since a large number of my facebook friends are just that, facebook friends and not actual friends, many of the people who see my frequent postings of material on these issues do not know me very well.

This has led to several people sending me messages wondering why I seem to care so much about the last legal form of discrimination and oppression we still endorse by law. The clear implication is that since I am heterosexual, my interest in the issue seems odd. I’m pretty certain none of these folks would question a person who identifies as anything other than heterosexual for being so interested. If the issue doesn’t impact me personally and directly by limiting my freedoms and the privileges heterosexual marriage allows, why do I care?

To me, this line of questioning is representative and telling of our uber-individualistic culture. But the truth is that I do think these issues affect me directly, just not in the ways reflected in the mentality of the question.

I am not impacted by heterosexism and homophobia in nearly the same way an individual who is not heterosexual is impacted. The same may be said when it comes to racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, discrimination against those with disabilities, and so on. The existence of these benefits me. I am the beneficiary of unearned privileges, whereas those who are marginalized feel the pain of unearned oppression. But while I benefit from the existence of these forms of hate and discrimination, I also see myself as being negatively impacted.

The term social justice gets thrown around a lot, particularly by people in positions of power and privilege who use the term to describe some type of work they do with/for (it’s usually for) marginalized folks. And while many use the term, few ever describe what they mean.

For me, social justice means a lot of things. One of the foundational principles of my conceptualization of what social justice means is that our collective, as well as our individual, well-being is determined by the conditions of our lives and of our daily lived experiences. We are all connected.

This may be simplified into a bumper sticker slogan of, “When one is oppressed none are free.” Please note that I ain’t hating on bumper stickers – those who knew the Integra know why. But while this may sound and/or look good, it is pretty easy to argue that affluent folks living in the United States do not have to feel the pain of the more than three billion people in the world (almost 50% of the planet’s population) who live on $2.50 or less per day. And I don’t say that as a transition to an “I feel your pain” argument. Believe me, Bill Clinton is one of the last people I would ever quote, particularly when it comes to the issue of gay rights. The man has a less than distinguished record on such matters. But I digress.

I say that individuals who are on the top of the economic/identity-based hierarchies of our world do not automatically feel the pain of oppressed people after I make the argument that we are all connected because this argument is just that, an argument. It is a position I take and a worldview I employ. But I recognize that not all people view things this way. In fact, many would label this way of thinking as collectivist (how awful), or even socialist (now that’s pure evil). And while I don’t really care what labels are thrust upon me, I do care that the ideas that comprise these philosophies are seen with such disdain.

I see myself as an individual, but I also see myself as a small part in a larger whole. And if I have to privilege one over the other, I think the individual is far less important. I feel the impacts when the larger whole of which I am a part is one that does not promote basic rights and liberties for all people. I am impacted by the fact that I voluntarily live in a culture that decides marital status should afford individuals tangible, financial benefits, but who you fuck determines whether or not you are entitled to receive said benefits. And for the record, I don’t believe the state should be recognizing and sanctioning any monogamous adult relationships, let alone incentivizing them. And that’s why this isn’t about marriage at all; it’s simply about recognizing that when we are part of a group that acts in violent and repressive manners, against targeted groups of people, it does so in our name. We are responsible.

This also isn’t about how this impacts friends and family members, or the fact that I should work hard to eliminate all possible forms of oppression and injustice my offspring might face, should one or both them not be heterosexual. This type of self-motivated fight for social justice is not a fight for social justice at all. It’s a self-serving fight for the betterment of individuals experiencing injustice. Fighting against injustice simply because it is impacting those you love, or because it could do so in the future, is anything but a fight for social justice. Such an act may serve as a first step; it may be just the eye-opener a privileged parochial person needs to pop the bubble they gleefully exist in. But in and out itself, it is the definition of a selfish act.

And before you react to the notion that personally felt and lived oppression does not serve as a legitimate catalyst for social action, take note that I am not arguing such. Privileged folks (and god knows my White, heterosexual, married male ass is in that camp) fighting to right the wrongs that harm and oppress individuals they know is an entirely different situation than a person fighting against the oppression they feel the brunt of. These two are nowhere near analogous. But this still leaves the question of why I care unanswered. It also leaves the explanation of this not being about marriage incomplete.

I engage in these fights for the simple fact that I believe we are a we. When we recognize that we are doing harm, we have a responsibility to act. We all have a voice, and we have a responsibility to use it. We have a responsibility to point out injustices, by screaming if necessary, and then do something to rectify these injustices. Speaking out is one of many things we can do. It is the least we can do, and the least we should feel the responsibility to do, irrespective of the fact that so many don’t. It is our job to lead by example and, if necessary, guilt others into joining us.

And in joining us we must embrace the responsibility of articulating why this fight over gay marriage is both vitally important and not about marriage at all. The fight over marriage is but one arena where legalized discrimination against non-heterosexuals exists. It is a carefully chosen symbol, and a first step. Because even if all gay people were allowed by law to be married tomorrow, these same folks would, in most states and municipalities, still face legally-sanctioned discrimination in seeking employment and housing, and in openly serving their country in the armed forces (thanks again Billy C).

The binary view of an issue, policy, or existing social condition impacting one personally and directly versus it not is a false dichotomy. It is nothing more than a tool used to promote the promulgation of the ideology of individualism. That’s why there is no such thing as gay rights. There are only civil rights and human rights.

The fight over gay marriage is not about granting gay people something different, based on the fact that they’re gay. This would be a granting of privileges, not rights. No, this is about recognizing that being gay is not a justification for the denial of rights.

So when you hear the talking heads on TV and the radio ramble on about non-heterosexuals and other oppressed minority groups wanting special rights, know that you do have something in common with them, at least in terms of the last word - rights.

We disagree on the moniker special, but we do agree that is about rights, not privileges. Remind them that privileges are special; rights are not. Then ask these individuals, the disproportionate number of whom are White, affluent, heterosexual, married men, if what really makes them upset is granting rights to others, or if it’s the inevitable transformation of these special privileges they enjoy merely becoming rights when all share in equal opportunities. Get back to me when you have an answer.

Cheney, torture, and secrecy: The ultimate trifecta

From the No Shit department of today's news making headlines - The Washington Post is reporting that former (thank god) Vice President Dick Cheney presided over meetings with senior members of Congress on torture (aka interrogation methods).

The former VP has made no secret about his support of torture during his tenure in office or since. He has justified these behaviors at every turn and has repeatedly stated he regrets nothing and torture makes us safer. So what's new in today's story. There are, in fact, several new revelations from today's story.

1. While his support for these methods/techniques has not been secret, the fact that the VP oversaw meetings with Congressional leaders, at the precise time when support for an investigation and/or elimination of these techniques was building, is something we did not previously know.

2. When the CIA handed over documents to the White House last month that listed every member of Congress who attended these briefings, the VP's name was absent.

3. In the aforementioned documents that the CIA released last month, the CIA was listed as the facilitators of the meetings Cheney apparently presided over. The VP sought to add pressure and convince skeptical members of Congress of the value of torturing enemy combatants; in aligning himself with those from the CIA, he conveyed his personal advocacy in a manner that gave the appearance of the CIA sharing the same view. And then there's the obvious issue - the VP of the US, sworn to uphold the law, once again saw it fit to use his own judgment on what that actually means.

Not that we needed any further evidence of the previous administration's disregard for the law and human rights, but apparently this extended to falsifying official documents. And make no mistake about it, when documents detailing the participants and proceedings of meetings related to anything, let alone issues like the controversy over state-sanctioned torture, omit the presence of the VP, that is falsifying documents.

It is true that Cheney's name was not on a list that named all those not present at the meetings. Therefore, it might be argued that the documents weren't falsified, they simply weren't as comprehensive as they should have been.

A child can rationalize not telling the whole truth as not equating to a lie, and every once in a while many of us probably play that game out in our heads when we're faced with a situation where we know telling the entire story will result in negative consequences. But regardless of the action we decide to take, we know that not telling the truth is tantamount to a lie. Perhaps this childlike view of what is and is not the truth is where the problem lies.

It is possible that the root of all of the immoral and irresponsible behaviors that the President, Vice President, and other key members of the previous administration engaged in is an underdeveloped sense of morality. Perhaps these individuals really do think what they did was right, even though the evidence tells us all how very wrong they were. Maybe they're not liars or lacking any sense of what is right and what is wrong. Maybe they're just adults whose capacity to understand morality and reason stopped developing when they were children.

Either that or Jesus told them to do it. I'm not sure which is more plausible.

Capitalism, Self-Esteem, and (Mis)Education

Lunchtime is always a good time for a little blogging.

Check out this great piece on the problems of American higher education and how they manifest in our daily lives at the micro and macro levels.

As someone who works in higher ed, I couldn't agree more with the points Astore raises. I would, however, go a step further in adding that the problems he identifies are exacerbated by a sense of entitlement that virtually all of the undergraduate students I work with possess.

This sense of entitlement is not all about money and privilege, though those students that do come from more affluent, privileged backgrounds enact the behaviors Astore discusses in a more heightened manner. Rather, the sense of entitlement today's college students possess is one they have learned through years of always being told they are special and brilliant. Parents bathe their children in unnecessary and unearned praises from the moment their child is born, the first usually being a presentation of a medal of honor for having a good bowel movement. We praise too much, and teach too little.

These students have never been allowed to fail; instead their helicopter parents divert them from all possible dangers and swoop in to save the day in the rare occurence that pits them face-to-face with the possibility of failure.

With have become consumed with valuing and promoting self-esteem at the cost of virtually everything else. But the way we have constructed self-esteem produces people that are anything but self-confident and self-assured.

Real self-esteem comes from expereinces that must involve failure. It is defined by how we cope with and adapt to failure. We learn who we are not when everything is going just the way we want it, but when things are anything but desirable. We build confidence from the lessons we learn in our mistakes, disappointments, and even utter failures.

By not allowing children to risk and fail, we shield them from experiences that actually might build character and serve as teachable moments. By promoting and building self-esteem in the manner we have, we make it impossible for children to become adults that can be expected to be anything but a grown-up version of a 3 year-old stomping her/his feet and throwing a fit when they don't get their way.

Execution: Just a part of life in Texas

Too busy today to craft any longer entries. I am working on a piece related to the discourses we employ to rationalize our positions on issues related of death, life, and choice and how individuals and groups seem to employ different discourses and conceptualizations of these when it suits their interests of a particular issue at hand. Namely, what does it mean to name yourself pro-life as it relates to the issues of reproductive rights and demonize those who favor coice as anti-life, and then advocate the ues of the death penalty? The piece is about the issues in a broad sense, as well as the now much publicized case of Troy Davis, a man convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Georgia 20 years ago. But I digress.

I'm posting this small entry to draw attention to what's scheduled to happen in Texas today. And though this type of event has become a frequent occurence in the Lone Star State, we can't allow it to become mundane.

Barring any unforeseen events, Terry Lee Hankins will be executed by the State of Texas at 6 PM tonight. Hankins will become the 200th person executed during the reign of terror known as the Governor Rick Perry administration. By comparison, during President Bush's term in office, 152 people were executed.

To be fair, Perry has served approximately two and a half years longer as Governor than did W; but being fair is not something either of these two men ever seemed interested in being. I do think it's fair to say that both men are fans of the death penalty and have demonstrated this by their frequent approval of murder by the state. Man, some days it's harder than others to wrap my head around the fact that I grew up in Texas.

In addition to the 199 individuals that were put to death under Perry, it is important to note that under his watch 35 people sitting on death row, previously convicted of murder and sentenced to die, have been exonerated by DNA evidence not presented during their trials.

Even if we disagree on the philosphical merits of state-sanctioned murder, it's pretty hard to disagree that juries and judges are people, and, as such, they make mistakes. And this says nothing about the mitakes of police officers, witness testimony, and the disproportionate number of people of color sentenced to death. And make no mistake about it; this issue, like all, yes all, others in America, is about race. That doesn't mean it's exclusively about race, but it is about race.

Hankins does not provide an example of possible mistakes in a conviction. Cases like his provide proponents of the death penalty with the kind of ammunition they need to make their case for continuing the practice. But whether or not he, or anyone else for that matter, did take the life of another, the fact that we so callously and casually pass judgement on the worth and value of another human being's life should make us pause for a moment and rethink the whole endeavor.

President Obama recently said that both opponents and proponents of a woman's right to choose should attempt to have dialogue, starting with identifying some common ground. That common ground, as it is so often said to be, is the shared desire to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies (I hate that term, but it's what is used) and abortions. I'd like to think this same sort of thinking could apply to those on opposite sides of the death penalty debate. But as 6 PM looms nearer, and both the tally of individuals killed at the hands of the state and those cleared of wrongdoing continue to tick upward, I'm not so sure that ground exists.

Update: Getting attention and action steps

It seems like some of the parties responsible for the atmosphere I wrote about in my last posting are not pleased with being called out. Michelle Malkin and Newsbusters.org (dedicated to exposing liberal media bias) both embedded hyperlinks to my piece on their blogs today. They link to my Daily Kos diary entry, not this blog. Either way, many thanks.

The issue is gaining attention, and one thing you can do to make a difference is sign this petition that calls for O'Reilly to take responsibility for his actions in creating this violent atmosphere.

And last but certainly not least, kudos to Frank Schaeffer, a man honest enough to admit he had a role in the death of a fellow human being. Schaeffer has written before about his involvement with the religious right and his later regrets. This is an honest admission of how his actions, and those of others in the movement, directly contributed to Dr. Tiller's murder.