Too soon for the Nobel?

The news that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize was greeted by a chorus of “too soon” in the United States. This early in his administration, he is still seen as a figure of hope rather than a figure of achievement. Even his strongest backers are waiting to see his campaign commitment in his presidency, and those who oppose what he stands for suspect that the committee in Norway is using the prize in an effort to influence U.S. politics.

What we forget is that simply by being elected on the platform he offered, Barack Obama has changed the world, moving it from fear to hope, and through his choice of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State he has projected that change. During the Bush presidency, the nations of the world saw the United States pulling back from international treaties, reemphasizing military prowess, affirming its right to a nuclear first strike, and rejecting the findings of science in the area where international cooperation is most urgently needed, slowing and eventually reversing the process of global warming. They saw the United States declaring war on the basis of false intelligence about an enemy. They saw the democratic process stymied in disputed elections. Suddenly the most powerful nation in the world seemed to have lost its ethical compass. I wonder whether most Americans realize how frightening this was.

Then, simply by being elected, Barack Obama convinced the world that the United States does indeed stand for peace and justice, does seek equality, and, perhaps even more important, that the United States values judicious and thoughtful leadership rather than boastfulness and threat. Everything he has done since reinforces that perception. The impatience many people feel reveals our resurgent vulnerability to leaders who go for the quick and often violent fix. I can empathize with the impatience because to some degree I share that vulnerability. I would have wanted to see more sooner. I share with my fellow citizens their impatience to move forward, their frustration about the delays that were carefully built into our political system by the framers of the constitution, and it takes an effort to stay on course.

But then I remember how I felt in the days before the election. I worried that my countrymen would lapse into a familiar pattern of racism. I worried that we would find a thoughtful and reflective candidate insufficiently macho. I worried that patterns of deception and fraud that have affected recent elections would succeed and that great numbers of Americans would despair of democracy. I feared to see mobs in the streets protesting betrayal. As the results came in, my deepest fear was averted.

I suspect that this fear was felt around the world. It is important to understand how frightening it is to see a nation with so much wealth, so much power, and so many weapons of mass destruction, caught in a politics of polarization, distrust, and irresponsibility.

Simply by being elected, Barack Obama restored my faith in America and offered hope not only to the voters but to the world. He will justify that faith by continuing on the path he is on, the path toward peace and justice that the election told the world this country could still stand for. One could argue that the Nobel Committee awarded the prize not only to the individual but to the United States of America for being true to itself at last. And one could then wonder whether the award was indeed made too soon, whether the nation that elected Barack Obama will prove capable of following through on its votes by supporting his policies and reassuring the world that we are indeed still true to our basic values.

The new administration and the death penalty

President Obama’s comments on abortion and his record in Illinois suggest a likely course on the death penalty: reduction and better regulation rather than abolition. This seems to be his style – reasoned and moderate reform. When it was found that there had been a number of mistaken convictions in Illinois, he pushed through a bill providing for the videotaping of interrogations leading to confessions in capital crimes, and he is clearly aware that convictions and penalties of all kinds weigh more severely on minorities. However, even though he acknowledges that it does not deter crime, he apparently approves the death penalty for particularly heinous cases, because of the strong feelings involved.

The concept of “shock and awe” came to the attention of the American public at the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003, but it is actually a military doctrine based on the immediate use of overwhelming force that has been part of military thinking since 1996, and has arguably affected police procedures as well. “Don’t pull your punches,” we say, “Hit ‘em hard and fast.” In the lead up to the Iraq war, this doctrine meant abandoning negotiation prematurely. It tends to increase collateral casualties, at least in the short term, and in the streets it means shooting at any sign of armed resistance. The Obama administration, through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has been working to restore the national commitment to international treaties and the rule of law, but it has not yet renounced Bush’s claim of the right to a preemptive nuclear first strike. We tend to think that the military know their own business best, but it is worth considering whether military and foreign policy have an effect on domestic behavior, and vice versa.

Debating gay marriage

Following last year’s elections, debates about same-sex marriage continue in a number of states that have legislation pending. The possibility of gay marriage has the potential to strengthen, rather than weakening, the social fabric. Marriage involves both rights and responsibilities and it may be that the demands by the gay community for the right to marry will lead to a new consideration of the responsibilities involved for couples of all kinds.

We are endlessly exposed to statistics based on head counts, as if every individual lived and made choices in isolation. But if individuals are metaphorically the atoms of society, they are organized into molecules of varying size and stability, and it is the molecular structure that determines the properties of the society at large. It is not informative simply to define water as consisting of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen: water, whose properties make life possible, consists of the elements combined in molecules. We call the different groupings of persons that constitute society by different names: political parties, clubs, corporations, religious denominations, ethnic associations, civil society . . . and, of course, nuclear families and extended kinship groups. The bonds that connect individuals in each vary but it is the multiplicity of these connections that gives society its resilience. Without them, individuals, especially women and children, are often defined as vulnerable, and men as potentially disruptive. During the colonial era, many communities required that unattached individuals become members of households, often working for room and board.

Human beings are social animals. For all the romance about bachelorhood, men in particular seem to be healthier and happier when married. The relationship we call marriage has as one of its functions the raising of children, which many same-sex couples are already doing, but its greater and more enduring function is that of providing mutual care and happiness. In our society, marriage is the primary institution through which adults take responsibility for each other’s wellbeing. It therefore performs functions that would otherwise fall on the wider community, including supportive care during many kinds of illness and in old age, and shared resources when one partner is unemployed. It also creates a context of reliable sexual access that avoids many of the problems of uncommitted and potentially predatory sexuality.

It will be asked whether same-sex marriages will really perform these functions, and the answer is that, like heterosexual marriages, they will perform these functions, but will do so imperfectly. Women, including lesbians, seem to tend toward sustained relationships and domesticity; men, gay or straight, are comparatively more interested in short term relationships and experimentation. Marriage may soften these differences but will not eliminate them, any more than denying access to marriage leads to continence. The individualistic emphasis in American society means that couples, of whatever kind, are not generally supported by friends and relatives with a continuing investment in their stability, helping them to get beyond problems and conflicts. It will take at least a generation of increased tolerance to assess the stability of partnerships between gay men who have not gone through long periods of self-rejection. But one thing we do know, partly as a result of the epidemic of HIV/AIDS, is that many gay men have cared lovingly for partners in sickness as in health.

The debate about gay marriage has been distorted by the way it is framed. First, let’s stop focusing only on rights and focus on responsibility, encouraging the willingness of same-sex couples to take on long term responsibilities for each other’s well being. Second, let’s assume the on-going presence and social acceptance of gays and lesbians living in consensual relationships without harassment, and notice that there are many reasons to think that legitimizing and stabilizing these relationships will benefit society. Third, let’s respect the right of faith communities to affirm their own customs without constraining others. Most important, let’s all use the vocal desire of same-sex couples to celebrate and prolong their commitments to reexamine the values of marriage for couples of all kinds. Weddings are temporary gatherings, fun for a day; marriage offers long term infrastructure to the whole society.

How often do the campaigns damage the candidates?

It strikes me that it is time to look at the way candidates for the presidency are sometimes damaged by the process, at least temporarily and perhaps permanently. Yes, we are all no doubt flawed and it is wise to maintain that awareness and remain alert, to conserve a hint of cynicism. But it seems unfortunate that in filling this position, which is so important not only for the US but for the rest of the world (which does not get to vote), the process so often erodes the principles. It reminds me of something that often struck me about the academic tenure process — the number of people who, having entered a field because they loved it and loved research, ended up alienated from both.

Before launching into this subject, I want to record a realization I had during the planning for my own wedding, now almost fifty years ago. It was a big event and my husband and I took a look at every detail to make it personal rather than following standard models. But at a certain point it occurred to me that the event did not belong to us, was not about us — like any shared ritual it was the property of a larger community who would weave it into their own systems of meaning, from the couple that broke up the evening before to the couple that gathered up the food after the reception and took it to a Democratic party meeting in Harlem — both true examples. We could only hope that the concept of marriage we were projecting did not subvert a good relationship but rather helped the first couple think through what they really wanted in useful ways, and that the food was both portable and appetizing when it arrived. I started asking not only what would feel right to us but what the guests would make of it.

I think the same thing is true of a political campaign. If we, as a people, own the process, we need to examine it. We refer to the candidate as the party’s “standard bearer.” But the candidate becomes in some degree the creature of his or her handlers, the people who have staked a big chunk of their lives on victory. For some it is a doorway to power — you have to win. For others it is a test of their capacity to hope and invest passion in the future of the society — you must not disappoint or disillusion. They become very possessive during the campaign — access to the candidate is an asset they control — and the candidate must at some level realize that he/she is theirs, belongs to them, and that “the hopes and fears of all the years are met in” the results.

Consider Gore — he seemed to project less conviction and to be less human as the campaign went on, like an actor who could not take direction and just got stiffer. Kerry also both lost both clarity and humor. I think the same problem affected McCain, so that someone who had been regarded as sincere and principled came to be seen as tarnished and compromised. He looked more relaxed after conceding than he had looked for months — his hands were no longer locked in fists. It can’t be good for anyone’s head to become a creature of Karl Rove. And surely the idealism of the young people risking a political commitment after years of apathy has been sustaining for Obama, and is part of the reason for the hope so many place in him. He remained remarkably on key, not just on message. Let us hope both that his principles remain firm and that those who are cheering now continue to sustain him in integrity and clarity of vision. Yes, he will lead, but the leader belongs to the led.

How often does the process subvert the goal? Somehow this reminds me of No Child Left Behind. Is it just the money or does the problem run deeper? What can be done?

Whose hopes are we talking about?

Once again, current events, this time the financial crisis, are pressing voters into short term decisions, but it is important to address the current crisis with a positive vision of how the system should work in the long term, and a memory of the steps that led up to it over a decade or more. The history is the history of systematic deregulation and disbelief in the positive contribution of government, accompanied by a national disenchantment with the political process and dropping voter engagement. Now everyone is aware that this election will be critical, but the urgency is not temporary. Every election poses the issues of change. Every election challenges us to consider what it is that we hope for.

But hope is an issue for every age group, not only for youth. Of course older Americans hope that the savings and the benefits they have counted on (and paid for) will be there for them — indeed, we hope for better coverage and less red tape. Many of us hope to continue on the job — unemployment is especially grim in late middle age — and even more of us hope to continue contributing to society and are looking for ways to do so. Meanwhile, we hope to live as healthily and autonomously as we can, and to die peacefully and with dignity. Many hope for an afterlife or for a reunion with loved ones beyond death, but this is not the business of politicians.

If the past eight years have taught us anything, it is that for the fulfillment of these hopes we must look to the political process to ensure a framework within which citizens are given honest information and can make responsible choices. As a nation, we need to think of the long term. Older Americans need to make it clear that we cannot turn repeatedly to the quick fix that depends on borrowing from the future — anyone who has lived six or more decades knows that change can be surprising and business as usual is not enough. We also know that good behavior depends on sensible laws and regulations widely supported and understood.

So when Barack Obama speaks about hope I know he is speaking to all the generations, and I believe it applies to every area of policy. It is time for young and old to join hands in the hope that we share. We are all in this game for the longer term — for today’s children and for generations we will never know. That’s what HOPE means to me.

Hillary Clinton and Obama

Hillary Clinton’s comments on Dr. King and President Johnson have set off a fire storm. What commentators have failed to realize is that they reflect both Clinton’s strengths and her weaknesses, as well as the real difference between her and Barack Obama. “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” Clinton said in a TV interview. “It took a president to get it done.”

Dr. King’s dream was of a future of social justice in which racism would be banished and opportunities would be equal for African Americans. His achievement was the mobilization of great numbers of black (and white) Americans to affirm that dream and to believe in its possibility, to strive for its realization and to do so without violence. Although King’s dream is still not perfectly realized, it continues to inspire people fighting for justice around the world. He played a key role in changing America forever and shares the credit for that achievement with those that listened and followed his lead, often risking their lives, and learning to think and act in new ways.

Often in history we see the work of a visionary leader implemented and put into a concrete form by someone who comes afterwards. Think of Jesus and Paul or Marx and Lenin. The passage of the Civil Rights Act meant that a vision could be implemented and enforced, although many struggles would still be necessary to see that this was done. Without Dr. King it seems doubtful that either Kennedy or Johnson would have taken on this task, which stood as a challenge to Kennedy after King’s assassination and was inherited by Johnson. Ironically Johnson was probably better equipped to achieve it. Kennedy was an inspiring speaker and held the office necessary to actually implement the dream, but he either lacked or did not have the chance to demonstrate the skills Johnson had in dealing with the Congress. So Ms. Clinton is right when she attributes the practical realization of the dream to Johnson.

These differences in style and skill set are still with us. Hillary Clinton was trained in law and has tended to see detailed and specific legislation as a major tool in social change. Over the years she has been in Washington she has increased her understanding of the need to communicate the visions that underlie policy goals as well as the need to implement them. She learned from her first effort at health care reform that the careful detail needed for legislation is not what speaks to hearts and minds. She is idealistic, with ardent hope for this country and the world, but she is basically practical minded, on balance more a doer than a dreamer. Some audiences — especially perhaps those with vivid memories of the sixties — respond deeply to Barack Obama with memories of King and JFK, and find Clinton overly pragmatic. Other audiences observe that Obama’s experience in the making and implementation of policy has been limited and know that ideals are not enough and the presidency can be profoundly frustrating for dreamers. And there seem to be substantial numbers of voters who respond neither to visions nor to policies but react instead to limited slogans and emotive buzz words.

The American presidency requires both vision and practicality, just as the achievement of social justice or peace requires both. Probably all the candidates have both in some measure, but in different proportions. We should be asking a two-fold question as we look at any candidate: first, will this candidate be inspired by a high vision of what this country can be and the role it can play in ensuring a just and stable world and a positive future? And second, will this candidate have the patience and respect for the democratic system to work with the political process step by step to implement that vision? It takes passion and patience, intelligence and imagination and common sense to do both.

Iran and Hillary

As the primaries approach and the endless campaign for the presidency heats up, we will be hearing a strange mixture of religious rhetoric and promises of violence. As a nation, we have apparently become more interested in having a president ready to “kick ass” than one with the vision and patience to work for peace.

The Democrats want the US to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, but this is only a start. Is there even one of our church-going candidates who is ready to take the reduction of violence, both domestically and internationally, as a primary goal? For the moment the United States is the richest and militarily most powerful nation in the world, with the opportunity to work toward a non-violent Pax Americana. Yet decisions being made in Washington are steadily eroding both America’s moral influence and our actual capacity. We are becoming a weaker and less respected nation. Arguably, the Cold War was ended by Soviet over-spending on the military, partly in the effort to keep up with the US, and now the extra-budget funding of the war in Iraq is driving us deep into deficits and losing us friends on all sides.

Much of the saber rattling at present seems to involve Iran. The US and Iran should have made peace long since, ending sanctions and opening the doors to full international participation, for this is one of the ways in which a new regime learns civil behavior and responsible world citizenship. Iran has vast material resources and also, even after the departures of recent years, has the richest human resources of any Islamic nation, rooted in generations of increasing education and centuries of high civilization, art, and science. We should be trying to shape the international context in such a way that Iran contributes up to its capacity, eventually becoming an Islamic voice for peace. The American military is said to have turned to certain kinds of torture at Abu Ghraib because they read that Arab men are vulnerable to sexual dishonor. The reality is that honor is indeed a motivating force in Middle Eastern cultures — and therefore that to treat people with respect and courtesy is the best way to elicit honorable and generous behavior.

Oddly enough, Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush sometimes seem like mirror images, playing to the crowds by looking tough, relying on their religiously most conservative constituencies, and so provincial that the opinions of the rest of the world don’t matter. Instead of swaggering, we should be reminding ourselves and our Muslim neighbors that “Islam means peace,” but at the same time who will remind us to read the Sermon on the Mount from time to time and to pay more attention to the peacemakers and to the poor? Not, apparently, the religious right. Maybe the willingness not to swagger should be a political litmus test.

We are often told that voters want proof that a candidate has sufficient “balls” to fight. We do of course need someone in the White House who can make hard and courageous decisions — (even politically unpopular decisions!) — and we are proud to have spent blood and treasure in necessary combat, especially in World War II. We believe in the willingness to sacrifice for principle — but not, surely, for macho show.

If it is really true that the American people prefer pugnacious tough guy behavior to thoughtful reason, this is especially problematic for a female candidate. Hillary Clinton was probably right to hedge her willingness to meet with statesmen from countries with which we are in conflict in terms of thoughtful (and professional) preparation. She would have done better, however, had she emphasized drawing on the resources of scholarship to advise on policies, as John Kennedy did, as well as government experts and the State Department. She is certainly right to defend the integrity and morale of the services that are still needed for defense, but she is not right to join into the clamor of condemnation of Iran at this delicate moment, and it is unfortunate that she seems to feel she needs to. It seems especially important for the woman whom I would like to see as our first women president to resist the pressures of our national taste for looking tough.

If we want a candidate with courage, that courage must include the willingness not only to stand up for peace, not only to study peace, but also to teach it. We might learn something.