There was a fascinating article in today's Boston Globe about why we remember some historical events and forget others. The author, Christopher Klein, began with a discussion of the tragic sinking of an American ship, the Sultana, in 1865. More than 1,800 of the passengers (including many soldiers returning home from the Civil War) perished when the Sultana's boilers exploded. Even today, 150 years later, it remains "...the greatest maritime disaster in American history." And yet, most of us, myself included, either know little about the sinking of the Sultana, or have never heard of it. "And as the 150th anniversary of the tragedy arrives, expect to hear the
same thing you have heard about the Sultana for the last 150 years —
nothing. Unlike the sinking of the Titanic, which claimed 300 fewer
lives, the Sultana disaster never spawned any Hollywood blockbusters,
theme park-style attractions, souvenir plate collections, or breathless
anniversary commemorations." http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/04/25/reasons-why-forget-some-historical-events/qKW3yebxed5NV1kwPVL2bK/story.html
It's a very interesting question: why do some historical events almost immediately recede into history, barely recalled, except perhaps by those the event affected; while other events attain an almost iconic status in our collective memory, remembered annually with parades or commemorated with monuments? I gave a talk recently about an event of great significance when it happened in Boston in 1919-- the "great molasses flood"-- a huge molasses storage tank ruptured, covering a large part of the city with the thick, gooey substance, killing about twenty people and injuring 150 others. More about that event, which dominated the newspapers all across the country when it happened, can be found here: http://www.historytoday.com/chuck-lyons/sticky-tragedy-boston-molasses-disaster
But just as quickly as the molasses flood made the news, it was soon replaced with other major stories. Today, other than local historians and readers of Stephen Puleo's excellent book about it ("Dark Tide," published in 2004), the molasses flood is rarely discussed.
What we remember as a culture and what we forget is worth considering, especially given the ongoing battle by some political figures to rewrite history, eliminating events that put their country in a bad light. We are seeing this even now with the government of Turkey's refusal to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, and the government of Japan's unwillingness to acknowledge that during the second world war, their army used Korean girls and women as sexual slaves. In some Muslim countries, leaders insist the Holocaust never happened. And let's be honest: through the years, there have been American politicians who tried to downplay slavery, or who insisted school history books should promote the view that America never did anything wrong.
Of course, it's human nature to want to sanitize the past. Many schools talk about Columbus as a great explorer, but avoid discussing how brutally he treated the native peoples; history books often teach about George Washington as a great president, but many avoid mentioning his ownership of slaves. I can sort of understand taking a simplistic view when teaching little children, but even in college, some of the famous people I was taught about had their "blemishes" removed, with their anti-black or anti-Semitic views conveniently omitted.
I don't have a good answer for why some events stick in our collective memory, and why some don't; nor do I have a good answer for why some people become famous, while others who (in my view) made important contributions to society are totally forgotten. But I do know it's important to keep having this discussion, and especially, it's important to ask if we are being told the entire story. Unfortunately, these days, there is so much information being thrown at us, from TV, radio, social media, movies, etc. It becomes hard to fact-check all of it, and some people don't even try. It seems that many of us just go from celebrity scandal to celebrity scandal, from political crisis to political crisis, each new thing replacing the one that was such a big deal only a few days before. (Media critic Douglas Rushkoff addresses this eloquently in his book "Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now." http://www.amazon.com/Present-Shock-When-Everything-Happens/dp/1617230103
I am not a person who worships the past, but I do believe it holds some
important lessons. And I am not alone in believing that. There are
many fake quotes on the internet, but this one by philosopher George
Santayana is quite real: “Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it” (The Life of Reason: Reason in Common Sense. Scribner’s, 1905, p. 284). It's a quote worth contemplating when watching, reading, or listening to the news: which stories will continue to resonate with us in the future, which stories will we quickly forget... and why?
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Saturday, April 18, 2015
If You've Got Your Health...
I have great admiration for people who can blog every day. I can't do it. It's not that I don't have opinions-- if you know anything about me, you know I have opinions about all kinds of things, from politics to religion to pop music to sports. But I worry about being boring. Someone left me an anonymous comment several weeks ago, saying my blog offers nothing new and there's no good reason to read it. Okay fine, you can't please everybody, but I really do want my blog posts to at least be worth your time. So, I don't try to arbitrarily turn out X number of words every day. I try to blog only when I've got something I really want to say, usually once a week. I suppose that sometimes, these posts will indeed bore some of you. I guess it's unavoidable. I'm still sort of new as a blogger, and I'm still trying to get the hang of it.
That said, what's on my mind today is not sports or music or politics. What's on my mind today is health. I was thinking about my maternal grandmother (of blessed memory). Her name was Dora and I never met her. She died of cancer in 1939, about eight years before I was born. She was only 44 and had been suffering for months with what today is a very treatable kind of cancer; but back then, her options were few, and she didn't get a chance to see her daughter (my mother) get married, nor did she live to see her grandchildren. I've heard a lot about her from my older relatives who knew her, and from all accounts, she was a loving and saintly person, who endured many hardships (anti-Semitism, the Great Depression, poverty, several serious illnesses), yet she continued to be optimistic in spite of them. She was an inspiration to my mother; in fact, the D in my first name is for my grandmother (it is customary for Jews of European ancestry to name their children after a relative who has died, so the person's memory lives on in the good deeds the living person does in their memory).
As many of you know, this past December, I was operated on for uterine cancer. Unlike my grandmother, I had the benefit of early detection, plus I had health insurance and lived near Boston, a city with many outstanding hospitals. My doctors believe they caught it early enough such that I will make a full recovery. My story will have a far different ending from my grandmother's (or for that matter, my mother's-- she also died of cancer, although she lived to be 71). Truth be told, I was not dealt a very good genetic hand: my grandmother, my mother, and about five of my female aunts and cousins died of cancer. That scares me, and I have to admit it. I try to be brave, and I usually succeed, but not always. Many people who know me think of me as a strong and positive person; I've been praised for my willingness to be open about having cancer, and I've encouraged others who have it. Being ill is nothing to be ashamed of, and we need to remove the stigma from having this disease. But there's another side of me that some people don't know: sometimes, late at night, I wake up and I'm afraid. I know that's not logical, but it happens sometimes. I don't want to die. I want to be the person in my family who beats cancer. But as optimistic as my doctors are, cancer is still the great unknown. We've come so far in research, yet there's no predicting how long anyone who has it (or had it) will live.
So, I try to take things a day at a time. I try to keep busy. I work a lot. I write articles. I do research. I mentor students. I send get-well cards to friends who are ill. And of course, I blog. Sometimes, all of these things are very cathartic. Sometimes, they don't help very much at all. But even when I am feeling scared inside, I still figure that I'm one of the lucky ones. I have far more options than my grandmother, or my mother (who died in 1987) ever did. I'm still here, and I hope that will continue for a long time. Meanwhile, I've become more convinced than ever that the old saying is true: if you've got your health, you've got everything. And I am sure some of you know from experience exactly what I mean.
That said, what's on my mind today is not sports or music or politics. What's on my mind today is health. I was thinking about my maternal grandmother (of blessed memory). Her name was Dora and I never met her. She died of cancer in 1939, about eight years before I was born. She was only 44 and had been suffering for months with what today is a very treatable kind of cancer; but back then, her options were few, and she didn't get a chance to see her daughter (my mother) get married, nor did she live to see her grandchildren. I've heard a lot about her from my older relatives who knew her, and from all accounts, she was a loving and saintly person, who endured many hardships (anti-Semitism, the Great Depression, poverty, several serious illnesses), yet she continued to be optimistic in spite of them. She was an inspiration to my mother; in fact, the D in my first name is for my grandmother (it is customary for Jews of European ancestry to name their children after a relative who has died, so the person's memory lives on in the good deeds the living person does in their memory).
As many of you know, this past December, I was operated on for uterine cancer. Unlike my grandmother, I had the benefit of early detection, plus I had health insurance and lived near Boston, a city with many outstanding hospitals. My doctors believe they caught it early enough such that I will make a full recovery. My story will have a far different ending from my grandmother's (or for that matter, my mother's-- she also died of cancer, although she lived to be 71). Truth be told, I was not dealt a very good genetic hand: my grandmother, my mother, and about five of my female aunts and cousins died of cancer. That scares me, and I have to admit it. I try to be brave, and I usually succeed, but not always. Many people who know me think of me as a strong and positive person; I've been praised for my willingness to be open about having cancer, and I've encouraged others who have it. Being ill is nothing to be ashamed of, and we need to remove the stigma from having this disease. But there's another side of me that some people don't know: sometimes, late at night, I wake up and I'm afraid. I know that's not logical, but it happens sometimes. I don't want to die. I want to be the person in my family who beats cancer. But as optimistic as my doctors are, cancer is still the great unknown. We've come so far in research, yet there's no predicting how long anyone who has it (or had it) will live.
So, I try to take things a day at a time. I try to keep busy. I work a lot. I write articles. I do research. I mentor students. I send get-well cards to friends who are ill. And of course, I blog. Sometimes, all of these things are very cathartic. Sometimes, they don't help very much at all. But even when I am feeling scared inside, I still figure that I'm one of the lucky ones. I have far more options than my grandmother, or my mother (who died in 1987) ever did. I'm still here, and I hope that will continue for a long time. Meanwhile, I've become more convinced than ever that the old saying is true: if you've got your health, you've got everything. And I am sure some of you know from experience exactly what I mean.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Ready for Hillary... or Not
So, in news that surprised absolutely no-one, Hillary Clinton announced she is running for president. Compared to other such announcements, hers was comparatively low-key. There was no arena speech, no press conference, no staged event. Rather, she relied on the internet-- on YouTube and social media-- to launch her campaign. And at the end of the beautifully-produced two-minute and eighteen second campaign video, Hillary asserted that she was running because "everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-enters-2016-presidential-race.html?ref=politics
There isn't much I can say about Hillary that hasn't been said before. Like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, and Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton is an enormously polarizing figure. Those who like her really, really like her. And those who don't like her believe she is contemptible. There seems to be no middle ground where she is concerned. In fact, the intensity of the "Hillary haters" has always puzzled me-- and their negative feelings are not new. Hillary haters can be found as far back as the 1970s, when she married Bill Clinton and decided to keep her name. It was a time when many professional women (myself included) kept their name, but Bill had been elected governor of Arkansas, and traditionalists were horrified that she wanted to be known as Hillary Rodham rather than Mrs. Bill Clinton.
And so it began. People said she was too selfish, too ambitious, a political liability for her husband. They criticized her hairstyle, her glasses, her outspokenness. In Arkansas, as in many other states, the wife of a politician was expected to know her place; and being a fiercely independent woman was controversial. Bill Clinton's Republican opponents sensed an opportunity: they tried to use Hillary's unpopularity to their advantage, manufacturing accusations of corruption and scandal that were supposedly linked to her.
Contrary to what her detractors believed (and still believe), none of the accusations ever proved to be true; but that didn't stop the media from covering the accusations relentlessly. Nor did it stop talk show hosts later on from listing the supposed litany of evil deeds that Hillary had done. Rightly or wrongly, Hillary came to regard the press as her enemy, part of what she called in 1998 a "vast right wing conspiracy" determined to destroy her and her husband. In Arkansas, she ultimately did take her husband's name and tried to accept her role as a political wife. But when she tried to focus on issues that a First Lady was supposed to care about, those who disliked her continued to be scornful, accusing her of being insincere. Then as now, people either liked her or hated her. (An interesting article about that period of her life, which quotes friends who knew her in Arkansas, can be found here: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/14/hillary-clinton-arkansas-friends.)
I'm not writing this blog post to defend Hillary Clinton, and I don't even know if I'll vote for her, assuming she gets the nomination. Yes, as a second-wave feminist, of course I'd like to see a woman president in my lifetime. And yes, I believe she has the qualifications and the experience; she was, after all, the first former First Lady to become a US senator or serve as Secretary of State. And while I don't agree with every vote she cast or every policy she supported, I really do want to like her. But I need to see her run a better campaign this time around than she did in 2008. I need to know where she stands on a number of the issues I care about, and what her plan is for moving this country forward. In other words, I need her to do what she pledged to do in her campaign video-- I need her to earn my vote, to tell me why voting for her is the right decision.
But I also need the media, including the pundits and commentators, to do a better job of covering the electoral process. Even today, much of the scrutiny aimed at female candidates (no matter what their political party) tends to be harsher and more judgmental than what is directed towards male candidates; too often, the coverage focuses on trivial things rather than on issues of substance. I frankly don't care whether Hillary has wrinkles, or that she has an unusual laugh; the fact that she likes pantsuits rather than skirts is fine with me. And I truly don't want to hear about Bill's infidelities all over again (as if somehow this was her fault). Her detractors will haul out the same tired old accusations that began in the 1970s, and use the same distorted quotes. I've heard that stuff already, as I've heard how she has "baggage"-- but so does just about every politician, so why does that even matter in 2015? What I want to know, and I assume other voters feel the same, is what's her vision for our country's future, and how would she implement that vision. More importantly, I want to know what she believes she can do better than Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or whoever else on the Republican side.
Things have improved greatly for women in politics: it is no longer unusual for women to run successfully for congress, or become mayors and governors. But not everything has changed. To cite one example, First Ladies still have problems carving out their own identity: even in our modern age, the public's expectations of what a First Lady should do are quite traditional. Much like it was in the 1950s, even a woman like Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama (or Laura Bush, for that matter), a college graduate who had a successful career before her husband became president, is expected to give up her career and focus on being a wife and mother, as well as finding a "cause" or a charity to occupy her time. Much of the outrage Hillary evoked in some quarters when she was First Lady in the 1990s resulted from her wanting to participate in policy decisions, rather than accepting the more traditional role. And now, she is running for president, the ultimate position of power. Has America changed enough to give her candidacy (or that of any other qualified woman) a fair chance? I don't know if America is "ready for Hillary"-- I'd like to believe we are, but it's so hard to predict the mood of the American public. In the next few months, as her campaign progresses, I'll weigh in with further comments.
There isn't much I can say about Hillary that hasn't been said before. Like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, and Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton is an enormously polarizing figure. Those who like her really, really like her. And those who don't like her believe she is contemptible. There seems to be no middle ground where she is concerned. In fact, the intensity of the "Hillary haters" has always puzzled me-- and their negative feelings are not new. Hillary haters can be found as far back as the 1970s, when she married Bill Clinton and decided to keep her name. It was a time when many professional women (myself included) kept their name, but Bill had been elected governor of Arkansas, and traditionalists were horrified that she wanted to be known as Hillary Rodham rather than Mrs. Bill Clinton.
And so it began. People said she was too selfish, too ambitious, a political liability for her husband. They criticized her hairstyle, her glasses, her outspokenness. In Arkansas, as in many other states, the wife of a politician was expected to know her place; and being a fiercely independent woman was controversial. Bill Clinton's Republican opponents sensed an opportunity: they tried to use Hillary's unpopularity to their advantage, manufacturing accusations of corruption and scandal that were supposedly linked to her.
Contrary to what her detractors believed (and still believe), none of the accusations ever proved to be true; but that didn't stop the media from covering the accusations relentlessly. Nor did it stop talk show hosts later on from listing the supposed litany of evil deeds that Hillary had done. Rightly or wrongly, Hillary came to regard the press as her enemy, part of what she called in 1998 a "vast right wing conspiracy" determined to destroy her and her husband. In Arkansas, she ultimately did take her husband's name and tried to accept her role as a political wife. But when she tried to focus on issues that a First Lady was supposed to care about, those who disliked her continued to be scornful, accusing her of being insincere. Then as now, people either liked her or hated her. (An interesting article about that period of her life, which quotes friends who knew her in Arkansas, can be found here: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/14/hillary-clinton-arkansas-friends.)
I'm not writing this blog post to defend Hillary Clinton, and I don't even know if I'll vote for her, assuming she gets the nomination. Yes, as a second-wave feminist, of course I'd like to see a woman president in my lifetime. And yes, I believe she has the qualifications and the experience; she was, after all, the first former First Lady to become a US senator or serve as Secretary of State. And while I don't agree with every vote she cast or every policy she supported, I really do want to like her. But I need to see her run a better campaign this time around than she did in 2008. I need to know where she stands on a number of the issues I care about, and what her plan is for moving this country forward. In other words, I need her to do what she pledged to do in her campaign video-- I need her to earn my vote, to tell me why voting for her is the right decision.
But I also need the media, including the pundits and commentators, to do a better job of covering the electoral process. Even today, much of the scrutiny aimed at female candidates (no matter what their political party) tends to be harsher and more judgmental than what is directed towards male candidates; too often, the coverage focuses on trivial things rather than on issues of substance. I frankly don't care whether Hillary has wrinkles, or that she has an unusual laugh; the fact that she likes pantsuits rather than skirts is fine with me. And I truly don't want to hear about Bill's infidelities all over again (as if somehow this was her fault). Her detractors will haul out the same tired old accusations that began in the 1970s, and use the same distorted quotes. I've heard that stuff already, as I've heard how she has "baggage"-- but so does just about every politician, so why does that even matter in 2015? What I want to know, and I assume other voters feel the same, is what's her vision for our country's future, and how would she implement that vision. More importantly, I want to know what she believes she can do better than Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or whoever else on the Republican side.
Things have improved greatly for women in politics: it is no longer unusual for women to run successfully for congress, or become mayors and governors. But not everything has changed. To cite one example, First Ladies still have problems carving out their own identity: even in our modern age, the public's expectations of what a First Lady should do are quite traditional. Much like it was in the 1950s, even a woman like Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama (or Laura Bush, for that matter), a college graduate who had a successful career before her husband became president, is expected to give up her career and focus on being a wife and mother, as well as finding a "cause" or a charity to occupy her time. Much of the outrage Hillary evoked in some quarters when she was First Lady in the 1990s resulted from her wanting to participate in policy decisions, rather than accepting the more traditional role. And now, she is running for president, the ultimate position of power. Has America changed enough to give her candidacy (or that of any other qualified woman) a fair chance? I don't know if America is "ready for Hillary"-- I'd like to believe we are, but it's so hard to predict the mood of the American public. In the next few months, as her campaign progresses, I'll weigh in with further comments.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
The Internet Giveth, the Internet Taketh Away
There have been times when I thought about running for office. I'm reasonably honest, I care about people, and I might be able to make a difference. I also think I could pass the vetting process-- unlike some politicians with scandals in their past, my life has been somewhat tame. I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't use drugs (I really do remember the 60s). I've been married to the same guy for 28 years, haven't broken any laws that I know of, and I even pay my parking tickets, on the rare occasions when I get one. So, it should be smooth sailing for me, am I right?
Actually, no. Whether I'm honest or kind or law-abiding, to be a successful candidate these days means raising millions of dollars, even for local races. In our post-Citizens United world, when unlimited cash from anonymous billionaires dominates the electoral process, it's almost impossible for an average person like me (average = not a millionaire) to get any traction. I could have the best message, the best ideas, but without lots of cash, nobody would know I exist. And even someone with a good reputation can still have enemies-- it doesn't take much to get some folks upset. Years ago, people who were upset with someone talked about them behind their back or tried to spread rumors. But that was then. This is the world of the internet, when one rude remark can travel all over the world, and one accusation can grow to twenty times its size in seconds. In such a world, anyone can suddenly become the object of scorn.
Politicians know this all too well. A rude remark by a campaign staffer, a gaffe at an event, even something that never happened but someone claims it did... years ago, you could control the damage or keep it tamped down. But these days, it doesn't take much to get Twitter, Facebook and the Blogosphere exploding with "the news" of the latest outrage. Suddenly, the mainstream press is reporting on it, and instead of focusing on your talking points or your message, you are explaining what you really said or what you meant to say or what actually happened. And then the next outrage occurs, and the next trending topic, and the next. So not only does today's candidate have to be extremely wealthy (it takes money to fund those attack ads that refute the accusations against you and make accusations against your opponent), but he or she has to be perfect-- never saying anything wrong, never looking upset or impatient, never making an unintended gaffe. And if a candidate fails in even the slightest way, the online world is ready to take that person to task, instantly and angrily. Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to endure the modern political campaign... Perhaps for some, the thought of having power is worth going through all the aggravation. But as for me, while I like to win, I guess I lack the "killer instinct." (And I certainly lack the money.) So I guess the "Donna for congress" banners will have to wait.
A final thought on an entirely different matter, although related to the internet world. This past week, we saw once again the power that the online universe has. As most of you know, Indiana (and to a lesser extent, Arkansas) became battlegrounds in the debate over so-called "religious freedom" laws. We can debate the need for such laws, but many of us believe these Orwellian regulations are really about allowing conservative Christian business owners to deny certain services to gay people (I discussed the issue in an earlier post). Wherever you stand on RFRA laws, one story fascinated me: a woman named Crystal O'Connor, whose family owns a pizza shop in Walkteron, Indiana, told a reporter that as a Christian, she could never cater a same-sex wedding because it violates her religious beliefs. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/04/01/indiana-family-pizzeria-wont-cater-gay-weddings/70813430/ What happened next, as it often does in stories about the culture wars, was sadly predictable: the online world exploded, at first in outrage over what were perceived as bigoted remarks. Then the story received news coverage in the mainstream media, and the store owners began to receive death threats; food reviewers trashed the store; endless rude tweets about the owners were posted, etc etc. Memories Pizza had to close due to all of the furor.
But while sometimes the internet attacks, sometimes it defends. A conservative website (The Blaze) and several conservative commentators (including Glenn Beck) led the defense; a GoFundMe page was set up to raise money for the owners, and suddenly, there were numerous comments, tweets, and blog postings in support of Memories Pizza, and their owners' freedom of speech. In the end, donors raised $800,000 on their behalf. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/03/raised-pizza-shop-religious-freedom-spotlight/25271455/ I'm hopeful they will use some of that money for a worthy cause (if they won't feed gay people at a wedding, perhaps they can donate pizza to the poor or the homeless?); but I found myself somewhat glad the story had a happy ending for the pizza shop: don't get me wrong; I don't agree with their views on gay marriage. But I also don't agree with outrage and rudeness (on both side, I might add) whenever someone says something controversial. Death threats because you don't agree with someone? Really? I wish the owners felt differently about marriage equality, but they did have the right to express their feelings. That said, I hope there won't be too much gloating over what seems to be a win for the conservative point of view. Public opinion can turn all too quickly. In the online world, it doesn't take much to go from a hero to a clown... or from a clown back to a hero. The internet giveth, the internet taketh away.
Actually, no. Whether I'm honest or kind or law-abiding, to be a successful candidate these days means raising millions of dollars, even for local races. In our post-Citizens United world, when unlimited cash from anonymous billionaires dominates the electoral process, it's almost impossible for an average person like me (average = not a millionaire) to get any traction. I could have the best message, the best ideas, but without lots of cash, nobody would know I exist. And even someone with a good reputation can still have enemies-- it doesn't take much to get some folks upset. Years ago, people who were upset with someone talked about them behind their back or tried to spread rumors. But that was then. This is the world of the internet, when one rude remark can travel all over the world, and one accusation can grow to twenty times its size in seconds. In such a world, anyone can suddenly become the object of scorn.
Politicians know this all too well. A rude remark by a campaign staffer, a gaffe at an event, even something that never happened but someone claims it did... years ago, you could control the damage or keep it tamped down. But these days, it doesn't take much to get Twitter, Facebook and the Blogosphere exploding with "the news" of the latest outrage. Suddenly, the mainstream press is reporting on it, and instead of focusing on your talking points or your message, you are explaining what you really said or what you meant to say or what actually happened. And then the next outrage occurs, and the next trending topic, and the next. So not only does today's candidate have to be extremely wealthy (it takes money to fund those attack ads that refute the accusations against you and make accusations against your opponent), but he or she has to be perfect-- never saying anything wrong, never looking upset or impatient, never making an unintended gaffe. And if a candidate fails in even the slightest way, the online world is ready to take that person to task, instantly and angrily. Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to endure the modern political campaign... Perhaps for some, the thought of having power is worth going through all the aggravation. But as for me, while I like to win, I guess I lack the "killer instinct." (And I certainly lack the money.) So I guess the "Donna for congress" banners will have to wait.
A final thought on an entirely different matter, although related to the internet world. This past week, we saw once again the power that the online universe has. As most of you know, Indiana (and to a lesser extent, Arkansas) became battlegrounds in the debate over so-called "religious freedom" laws. We can debate the need for such laws, but many of us believe these Orwellian regulations are really about allowing conservative Christian business owners to deny certain services to gay people (I discussed the issue in an earlier post). Wherever you stand on RFRA laws, one story fascinated me: a woman named Crystal O'Connor, whose family owns a pizza shop in Walkteron, Indiana, told a reporter that as a Christian, she could never cater a same-sex wedding because it violates her religious beliefs. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/04/01/indiana-family-pizzeria-wont-cater-gay-weddings/70813430/ What happened next, as it often does in stories about the culture wars, was sadly predictable: the online world exploded, at first in outrage over what were perceived as bigoted remarks. Then the story received news coverage in the mainstream media, and the store owners began to receive death threats; food reviewers trashed the store; endless rude tweets about the owners were posted, etc etc. Memories Pizza had to close due to all of the furor.
But while sometimes the internet attacks, sometimes it defends. A conservative website (The Blaze) and several conservative commentators (including Glenn Beck) led the defense; a GoFundMe page was set up to raise money for the owners, and suddenly, there were numerous comments, tweets, and blog postings in support of Memories Pizza, and their owners' freedom of speech. In the end, donors raised $800,000 on their behalf. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/03/raised-pizza-shop-religious-freedom-spotlight/25271455/ I'm hopeful they will use some of that money for a worthy cause (if they won't feed gay people at a wedding, perhaps they can donate pizza to the poor or the homeless?); but I found myself somewhat glad the story had a happy ending for the pizza shop: don't get me wrong; I don't agree with their views on gay marriage. But I also don't agree with outrage and rudeness (on both side, I might add) whenever someone says something controversial. Death threats because you don't agree with someone? Really? I wish the owners felt differently about marriage equality, but they did have the right to express their feelings. That said, I hope there won't be too much gloating over what seems to be a win for the conservative point of view. Public opinion can turn all too quickly. In the online world, it doesn't take much to go from a hero to a clown... or from a clown back to a hero. The internet giveth, the internet taketh away.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Ted Cruz and the Meaning of Freedom
Thanks to my years in media, I've met a lot of famous people, and not just musicians or TV and radio stars. I've volunteered on several senatorial and presidential campaigns (I know what my conservative friends are thinking-- "bet you only volunteered for Democrats"-- but you're wrong about that). In fact, over the years, I've met and chatted with politicians from just about every major and minor party. On the other hand, there are some political figures I've never met, and I really wish I could. To cite two examples, I've never met Bill Clinton, nor George W. Bush; I'd welcome an opportunity to sit and chat with them, given how influential each has been on the history of the past several decades.
Among the more recent politicians I haven't met is Texas Senator Ted Cruz. By all accounts, he's quite intelligent, a good debater, well-versed on the issues, and passionate about his beliefs. I'm sure we could have an interesting conversation, even if I doubt we'd agree on much. Several days ago, Senator Cruz announced that he would seek the Republican nomination for president. How he announced was interesting: he made a speech at a well-known Christian college, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He spoke to an audience comprised of "10,000 cheering evangelical Christian students," and he specifically tailored his speech to that audience, delivering "an overtly Christian message, roaming the stage like a megachurch pastor with a wireless microphone." (It is worth noting that attendance at his speech was not voluntary; he may have gotten an enthusiastic reaction because students agreed with his message, or they may have responded because he is a very entertaining speaker. But in either case, they still had to be there. For more about this, see Politifact, which fact-checked the claim that attendance was mandatory, and found it to be "true." http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/25/jess-mcintosh/liberty-u-students-faced-fine-if-they-skipped-cruz/)
Throughout Mr. Cruz's speech, he made reference to how "people of faith" felt ignored and unheard by the (presumably secular) Washington establishment; he pledged to be the kind of candidate who would take a strong stand for traditional Christian values. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/03/23/senator-ted-cruz-mounts-bid-for-president-with-appeal-staunch-conservatives/YGc2DAQCF9drDacldCTeyO/story.html
None of this surprised me: after all, Mr. Cruz has long appealed to Christian conservatives, and his rhetoric often includes calls to restore religion to a central place in American life. In fact, during his speech, he asserted that if evangelical Christians would become politically engaged and vote in large numbers, "the promise of America" could be restored: "It's going to take a new generation of courageous conservatives to help make America great again, and I'm ready to stand with you to lead the fight..."Today, roughly half of born-again Christians aren't voting. They're staying home. Imagine instead millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-appeals-to-christian-conservatives-in-2016-kickoff/
As a student of politics, and a professor of political communication, I have no problem with Ted Cruz's call for Christian conservatives to become more active. It makes sense for him to target a group he believes he can win. (Whether he actually can become their preferred candidate is an open question, however. There are other Republican candidates who are also in good standing with evangelicals, most notably former Arkansas governor and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. An ordained Baptist minister, Huckabee is very popular with Christian conservatives. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/26/huckabee-goes-back-to-school-as-he-moves-closer-to-2016-run/ Further, he does not have the incendiary and polarizing reputation Ted Cruz has.)
But what concerns me as a Jewish person and a political moderate is what Mr. Cruz means when he talks about "freedom." For Ted Cruz, it's an article of faith (pun intended) that today's America discriminates against conservative Christians, and that President Obama is waging an "assault" on "religious liberty." I have heard this claim before, from other religious conservative candidates, and I must admit I don't understand it; I find it equally puzzling when my conservative friends claim there is a "war on Christmas." (I wrote a commentary about the alleged War on Christmas for my local newspaper this past December: http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20141205/Opinion/141207614) As far as I can see, nobody is stopping Ted Cruz from attending the church of his choice, or reading Christian books, or attending Christian movies. Nobody is telling him he can't teach his kids about Christianity, and yes, he can observe Christmas without fear of arrest. (Sadly, in some countries, members of minority religions are arrested for trying to worship. But that is not the case in the United States.)
But what Ted Cruz cannot, and should not, do is advocate for a theocracy. America is not a "Christian nation," contrary to various online myths. A majority of Americans are some denomination of Christian, yes, but there is no official church in America, nor did the Founding Fathers want there to be. I don't think I'd want to live in the country where only one version of religion were promoted-- the Puritans tried that in America's early years, and it did not turn out very well for those who were either not Puritan at all, or not Puritan enough. I would hate to go back to those bad old days, when government and religion were intertwined. Such a mixture is rarely good for those of us in the minority.
I guess that's the main reason I would like to talk to Mr. Cruz. I would want to ask him if he sincerely believes separation of church and state is a bad idea. I would want to ask him if in his America, those who do not share his interpretation of Christianity (or who are not Christian, or not conservative) would be welcome. And I would want to ask him what he means when he talks about his respect for the Constitution. If he respects the Constitution, does he also respect the First Amendment? As I said, I am fine about his political decision to court evangelical Christians. But I am not fine about any politician who claims America would be a better country if only one certain set of beliefs (theirs) were followed. Like it or not, we are a melting pot, home to people of many religions (and some of no religion). I'd like to see it stay that way. And I'd like to know why Ted Cruz would not.
Among the more recent politicians I haven't met is Texas Senator Ted Cruz. By all accounts, he's quite intelligent, a good debater, well-versed on the issues, and passionate about his beliefs. I'm sure we could have an interesting conversation, even if I doubt we'd agree on much. Several days ago, Senator Cruz announced that he would seek the Republican nomination for president. How he announced was interesting: he made a speech at a well-known Christian college, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He spoke to an audience comprised of "10,000 cheering evangelical Christian students," and he specifically tailored his speech to that audience, delivering "an overtly Christian message, roaming the stage like a megachurch pastor with a wireless microphone." (It is worth noting that attendance at his speech was not voluntary; he may have gotten an enthusiastic reaction because students agreed with his message, or they may have responded because he is a very entertaining speaker. But in either case, they still had to be there. For more about this, see Politifact, which fact-checked the claim that attendance was mandatory, and found it to be "true." http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/25/jess-mcintosh/liberty-u-students-faced-fine-if-they-skipped-cruz/)
Throughout Mr. Cruz's speech, he made reference to how "people of faith" felt ignored and unheard by the (presumably secular) Washington establishment; he pledged to be the kind of candidate who would take a strong stand for traditional Christian values. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/03/23/senator-ted-cruz-mounts-bid-for-president-with-appeal-staunch-conservatives/YGc2DAQCF9drDacldCTeyO/story.html
None of this surprised me: after all, Mr. Cruz has long appealed to Christian conservatives, and his rhetoric often includes calls to restore religion to a central place in American life. In fact, during his speech, he asserted that if evangelical Christians would become politically engaged and vote in large numbers, "the promise of America" could be restored: "It's going to take a new generation of courageous conservatives to help make America great again, and I'm ready to stand with you to lead the fight..."Today, roughly half of born-again Christians aren't voting. They're staying home. Imagine instead millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-appeals-to-christian-conservatives-in-2016-kickoff/
As a student of politics, and a professor of political communication, I have no problem with Ted Cruz's call for Christian conservatives to become more active. It makes sense for him to target a group he believes he can win. (Whether he actually can become their preferred candidate is an open question, however. There are other Republican candidates who are also in good standing with evangelicals, most notably former Arkansas governor and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. An ordained Baptist minister, Huckabee is very popular with Christian conservatives. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/26/huckabee-goes-back-to-school-as-he-moves-closer-to-2016-run/ Further, he does not have the incendiary and polarizing reputation Ted Cruz has.)
But what concerns me as a Jewish person and a political moderate is what Mr. Cruz means when he talks about "freedom." For Ted Cruz, it's an article of faith (pun intended) that today's America discriminates against conservative Christians, and that President Obama is waging an "assault" on "religious liberty." I have heard this claim before, from other religious conservative candidates, and I must admit I don't understand it; I find it equally puzzling when my conservative friends claim there is a "war on Christmas." (I wrote a commentary about the alleged War on Christmas for my local newspaper this past December: http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20141205/Opinion/141207614) As far as I can see, nobody is stopping Ted Cruz from attending the church of his choice, or reading Christian books, or attending Christian movies. Nobody is telling him he can't teach his kids about Christianity, and yes, he can observe Christmas without fear of arrest. (Sadly, in some countries, members of minority religions are arrested for trying to worship. But that is not the case in the United States.)
But what Ted Cruz cannot, and should not, do is advocate for a theocracy. America is not a "Christian nation," contrary to various online myths. A majority of Americans are some denomination of Christian, yes, but there is no official church in America, nor did the Founding Fathers want there to be. I don't think I'd want to live in the country where only one version of religion were promoted-- the Puritans tried that in America's early years, and it did not turn out very well for those who were either not Puritan at all, or not Puritan enough. I would hate to go back to those bad old days, when government and religion were intertwined. Such a mixture is rarely good for those of us in the minority.
I guess that's the main reason I would like to talk to Mr. Cruz. I would want to ask him if he sincerely believes separation of church and state is a bad idea. I would want to ask him if in his America, those who do not share his interpretation of Christianity (or who are not Christian, or not conservative) would be welcome. And I would want to ask him what he means when he talks about his respect for the Constitution. If he respects the Constitution, does he also respect the First Amendment? As I said, I am fine about his political decision to court evangelical Christians. But I am not fine about any politician who claims America would be a better country if only one certain set of beliefs (theirs) were followed. Like it or not, we are a melting pot, home to people of many religions (and some of no religion). I'd like to see it stay that way. And I'd like to know why Ted Cruz would not.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
The "Utah Compromise" and a Decade of Social Change
At one of the universities where I used to teach, I had a gay colleague who had been with his partner for nearly three decades. Although they loved and cared about each other, they could not marry, nor even have a civil union. Their relationship was not recognized by law, nor did they expect that it would be; both had lived through the 1950s, an era when acknowledging one's homosexuality could result in being fired. (I even saw that happen in the early 1970s: a friend of mine was a high school teacher, and when her school found out she was gay, she lost her job. There was nothing she could do about it. That is how life was back then.)
In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage (or, as its proponents prefer to call it, "marriage equality"). It caused a firestorm of controversy: religious conservatives were outraged, claiming that traditional morality was now under attack; while civil libertarians praised the decision, saying gay people should not have fewer rights than straight people. As one of those straight people, I have to admit that I hadn't thought much about the issue. Of course, I didn't want to see anyone treated unfairly, but the idea that gay people might want to marry was foreign to me. I'm embarrassed to admit this, but like many people of my generation, I had been taught that gay people were all promiscuous and would never want to get married even if they could. I later found out this was a myth, as were many of the other stereotypes I had learned; what changed my perspective was meeting and talking with gay men and lesbians who were in long-term relationships. It turns out that my favorite philosopher, the late great Emmanuel Lévinas was right when he said that it's important to look into the face of "the other," to get to know the person rather than the stereotype.
Whenever there is a hot-button issue in the culture, it doesn't take long for politicians to capitalize on it. In 2004, civil marriage for gay people was still a new and very controversial idea: in fact, polling data done by ABC News showed only 32% of Americans supported it. President Bush was in a tight race with then-Senator John Kerry, and Bush's chief strategist Karl Rove understood that one way to win was to get base voters energized so that they would turn out in larger numbers, especially in battle-ground states. Capitalizing on negative attitudes about gay marriage, Rove made sure that in eleven swing states, there were ballot questions supporting a constitutional ban. This appeal to religious conservatives was successful: Rove himself later told reporters that voters who turned out to express their disapproval of gay marriage contributed to Bush's election victory. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/politics/campaign/10rove.html
Yet it is not clear if such a tactic would work today: only ten years later, in 2014, ABC News revisited attitudes about gay marriage, and found that the numbers were quite different: nearly 60% of respondents were now in favor, and the number had been steadily rising over the past five years. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/record-support-for-gay-marriage-half-see-it-as-a-constitutional-right/ As I write this, there are now more than 30 states where gay couples can marry. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/map-same-sex-marriage/ But perhaps the most surprising turn of events recently occurred in Utah, one of the reddest of the red states, with a history of opposition to marriage rights for gay people. While the Mormon Church, the dominant religious group in Utah, is still on record as being opposed to gay marriage, the church and Mormon legislators were able to craft a law that bans discrimination against gay people in matters of housing and employment. The so-called "Utah Compromise," while still allowing exceptions for religious institutions, is being hailed as "a breakthrough in balancing [gay] rights and religious freedom, and [could serve] as a model for other conservative states..." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/utah-passes-antidiscrimination-bill-backed-by-mormon-leaders.html?_r=0
And although some gay rights groups are saying the legislation doesn't go far enough (and some religious groups are saying it goes too far), the fact that it passed at all is rather amazing. Ten years ago, the idea that a conservative state legislature would be able to pass any bill protecting gay rights would have been greeted with skepticism. And yet, it just happened, and the "Utah Compromise" has been widely praised as a good start: as the Boston Globe said in an editorial, "...the Utah legislature just reminded politicians across the country that, in fact, half a loaf is often better than no loaf at all." http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/03/20/expanding-gay-rights-utah-smart-compromise/9mq0WnK1Axcten5Bc5bXTJ/story.html
As for me, today is my wedding anniversary; and contrary to the claims in 2004 that allowing gay people to marry would harm "traditional marriage," my husband and I have been married for 28 years. And as far as I can tell, we are still heterosexual, and we are still married. The only thing that is substantially different since 2004 is that now, my gay friends and colleagues can also get married. And while I know my conservative readers will disagree with me, I fail to see what problem marriage equality has caused. I'm glad that attitudes, including mine, have changed so much, in such a relatively short time. In fact, when my students remark that attitudes about a cause they support don't seem to be changing at all, I can tell them not to be discouraged: as we've seen over the past ten years, public opinion about an issue can suddenly shift; and it can happen faster than any of us ever might have expected.
In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage (or, as its proponents prefer to call it, "marriage equality"). It caused a firestorm of controversy: religious conservatives were outraged, claiming that traditional morality was now under attack; while civil libertarians praised the decision, saying gay people should not have fewer rights than straight people. As one of those straight people, I have to admit that I hadn't thought much about the issue. Of course, I didn't want to see anyone treated unfairly, but the idea that gay people might want to marry was foreign to me. I'm embarrassed to admit this, but like many people of my generation, I had been taught that gay people were all promiscuous and would never want to get married even if they could. I later found out this was a myth, as were many of the other stereotypes I had learned; what changed my perspective was meeting and talking with gay men and lesbians who were in long-term relationships. It turns out that my favorite philosopher, the late great Emmanuel Lévinas was right when he said that it's important to look into the face of "the other," to get to know the person rather than the stereotype.
Whenever there is a hot-button issue in the culture, it doesn't take long for politicians to capitalize on it. In 2004, civil marriage for gay people was still a new and very controversial idea: in fact, polling data done by ABC News showed only 32% of Americans supported it. President Bush was in a tight race with then-Senator John Kerry, and Bush's chief strategist Karl Rove understood that one way to win was to get base voters energized so that they would turn out in larger numbers, especially in battle-ground states. Capitalizing on negative attitudes about gay marriage, Rove made sure that in eleven swing states, there were ballot questions supporting a constitutional ban. This appeal to religious conservatives was successful: Rove himself later told reporters that voters who turned out to express their disapproval of gay marriage contributed to Bush's election victory. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/politics/campaign/10rove.html
Yet it is not clear if such a tactic would work today: only ten years later, in 2014, ABC News revisited attitudes about gay marriage, and found that the numbers were quite different: nearly 60% of respondents were now in favor, and the number had been steadily rising over the past five years. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/record-support-for-gay-marriage-half-see-it-as-a-constitutional-right/ As I write this, there are now more than 30 states where gay couples can marry. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/map-same-sex-marriage/ But perhaps the most surprising turn of events recently occurred in Utah, one of the reddest of the red states, with a history of opposition to marriage rights for gay people. While the Mormon Church, the dominant religious group in Utah, is still on record as being opposed to gay marriage, the church and Mormon legislators were able to craft a law that bans discrimination against gay people in matters of housing and employment. The so-called "Utah Compromise," while still allowing exceptions for religious institutions, is being hailed as "a breakthrough in balancing [gay] rights and religious freedom, and [could serve] as a model for other conservative states..." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/utah-passes-antidiscrimination-bill-backed-by-mormon-leaders.html?_r=0
And although some gay rights groups are saying the legislation doesn't go far enough (and some religious groups are saying it goes too far), the fact that it passed at all is rather amazing. Ten years ago, the idea that a conservative state legislature would be able to pass any bill protecting gay rights would have been greeted with skepticism. And yet, it just happened, and the "Utah Compromise" has been widely praised as a good start: as the Boston Globe said in an editorial, "...the Utah legislature just reminded politicians across the country that, in fact, half a loaf is often better than no loaf at all." http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/03/20/expanding-gay-rights-utah-smart-compromise/9mq0WnK1Axcten5Bc5bXTJ/story.html
As for me, today is my wedding anniversary; and contrary to the claims in 2004 that allowing gay people to marry would harm "traditional marriage," my husband and I have been married for 28 years. And as far as I can tell, we are still heterosexual, and we are still married. The only thing that is substantially different since 2004 is that now, my gay friends and colleagues can also get married. And while I know my conservative readers will disagree with me, I fail to see what problem marriage equality has caused. I'm glad that attitudes, including mine, have changed so much, in such a relatively short time. In fact, when my students remark that attitudes about a cause they support don't seem to be changing at all, I can tell them not to be discouraged: as we've seen over the past ten years, public opinion about an issue can suddenly shift; and it can happen faster than any of us ever might have expected.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Of Airports, Rush Fans, and Gallup Polls
First, an apology. I normally write my blog on Saturday. But that wasn't possible this past Saturday, because thanks to Southwest Airlines, I was stranded in Phoenix, where I had to spend all night at the airport. They didn't offer a hotel, nor a voucher to buy dinner, absolutely nothing. The folks working the ticket counter seemed really overworked and understaffed, and they rapidly grew impatient. Me too, though I tried to be polite. Bottom line: no flights out till early in the morning, go sit in the terminal and wait. So I did. It's been years since I people-watched in an airline terminal. As the hour got later, there were only a few people walking by, but I did see a couple of totally adorable kids, ages seven and five, on their way back to Mexico with their parents, after visiting relatives in Phoenix; fortunately, my high school Spanish enabled me to communicate, because they were just so friendly. The five year old wanted to know why I was sitting there-- I told him I wanted to know the same thing. I watched the cleaning crew cleaning (they came from a wide range of countries-- Somalia, Micronesia, Mexico, Ghana, Sudan, etc). I saw a few folks who were also stranded, who were trying to get some sleep. And I hung out at the one 24-hour Starbucks, buying a caramel frappuccino at 4 AM, and using a very unreliable WiFi that arbitrarily disconnected us every few minutes just because it could. Okay fine, worse things have happened to me. (After all, I'm now officially a cancer survivor. Having cancer was much worse.) But this experience was a close second: I didn't expect to be unable to get from Phoenix to Boston for nearly 48 hours. Suffice it to say that blogging was the last thing on my mind-- getting home was.
And that brings me to Rush fans. On Facebook, I have nearly 4,000 followers. No, I am really not that popular-- but as the woman who discovered this amazing rock band and helped to launch their career, I am sort of the patron saint (saintess?) of the world-wide community of fans. Alex, Geddy, and Neil have graced me with their friendship for more than 40 years. And thanks to them, I have met Rush fans from just about every country-- and there are fans in places you might not suspect. In addition to North and South American fans, you can find lovers of Rush's music in Indonesia, Pakistan, Japan, Israel, and elsewhere. I even know people who have learned English to better appreciate the lyrics to Rush songs.
Anyway, I vented on Facebook about my plight and suddenly my page exploded with outrage, derision, annoyance, offers to flock the Southwest website and protest, etc. In an otherwise miserable situation, it was so heartening to know that the fan community cares what happens-- and not just to me. Like the members of the band, who are well-known for being philanthropists and family men, Rush fans take care of each other. In fact, in all the years I've spent in broadcasting, they are some of the most compassionate people I've encountered. They have reached out to folks with cancer, folks who are feeling alone, folks who are having a difficult time. They get together before and after concerts. They hold dinners and parties. They are like a large, noisy, sometimes contentious family. They are politically all over the map: some are righties, some are lefties, some are libertarians... but the one thing they all agree on is that Rush is the best rock band ever. And I appreciated the fact that they were there to support me online during my frustrating adventure in trying to get home.
And then I finally got to Boston, and I was thinking about what to write (part of this blog is to fulfill the requirements of a course I am taking about politics campaigns) when I came upon a news article from the always reliable McClatchy News Service: "People Don't Like Republicans or Democrats, Gallup Finds." The article restated the results of a recent Gallup Poll, which found that both major U.S. parties are now below 40% in approval ratings for the first time since Gallup began tracking perceptions of political parties in 1992-- you can read the poll and the analysis here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/181985/neither-major-party-cracks-favorability-latest-poll.aspx And it made me think of something I wrote in my very first blog post-- how we have become an "argument culture," where polarization is the rule rather than the exception. (Ironically, it's well known that while people hate "congress," they keep voting for most of the same folks over and over, since they generally believe their own local politician is okay. This too is a trend that Gallup, as well as political columnists, repeatedly noted: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/09/people-hate-congress-but-most-incumbents-get-re-elected-what-gives/) Thinking about this, for a moment, it made me wish more people could be like Rush fans-- able to focus on what they have in common rather than dwelling on the areas where they disagree. Yes, I know-- these days, such hopes seem like the impossible dream. But wouldn't a lot more get accomplished, in congress as well as in daily life, if "compromise" had not become such a dirty word?
And that brings me to Rush fans. On Facebook, I have nearly 4,000 followers. No, I am really not that popular-- but as the woman who discovered this amazing rock band and helped to launch their career, I am sort of the patron saint (saintess?) of the world-wide community of fans. Alex, Geddy, and Neil have graced me with their friendship for more than 40 years. And thanks to them, I have met Rush fans from just about every country-- and there are fans in places you might not suspect. In addition to North and South American fans, you can find lovers of Rush's music in Indonesia, Pakistan, Japan, Israel, and elsewhere. I even know people who have learned English to better appreciate the lyrics to Rush songs.
Anyway, I vented on Facebook about my plight and suddenly my page exploded with outrage, derision, annoyance, offers to flock the Southwest website and protest, etc. In an otherwise miserable situation, it was so heartening to know that the fan community cares what happens-- and not just to me. Like the members of the band, who are well-known for being philanthropists and family men, Rush fans take care of each other. In fact, in all the years I've spent in broadcasting, they are some of the most compassionate people I've encountered. They have reached out to folks with cancer, folks who are feeling alone, folks who are having a difficult time. They get together before and after concerts. They hold dinners and parties. They are like a large, noisy, sometimes contentious family. They are politically all over the map: some are righties, some are lefties, some are libertarians... but the one thing they all agree on is that Rush is the best rock band ever. And I appreciated the fact that they were there to support me online during my frustrating adventure in trying to get home.
And then I finally got to Boston, and I was thinking about what to write (part of this blog is to fulfill the requirements of a course I am taking about politics campaigns) when I came upon a news article from the always reliable McClatchy News Service: "People Don't Like Republicans or Democrats, Gallup Finds." The article restated the results of a recent Gallup Poll, which found that both major U.S. parties are now below 40% in approval ratings for the first time since Gallup began tracking perceptions of political parties in 1992-- you can read the poll and the analysis here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/181985/neither-major-party-cracks-favorability-latest-poll.aspx And it made me think of something I wrote in my very first blog post-- how we have become an "argument culture," where polarization is the rule rather than the exception. (Ironically, it's well known that while people hate "congress," they keep voting for most of the same folks over and over, since they generally believe their own local politician is okay. This too is a trend that Gallup, as well as political columnists, repeatedly noted: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/09/people-hate-congress-but-most-incumbents-get-re-elected-what-gives/) Thinking about this, for a moment, it made me wish more people could be like Rush fans-- able to focus on what they have in common rather than dwelling on the areas where they disagree. Yes, I know-- these days, such hopes seem like the impossible dream. But wouldn't a lot more get accomplished, in congress as well as in daily life, if "compromise" had not become such a dirty word?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)