A compass for convoluted times

67 years ago, on the eve of increasing taxes to support  a foreign  war the public had grown weary of, our President delivered a speech extending  “the four freedoms” that a future world, secured by  the current American efforts, would be founded upon:

Freedom of speech and expression.  Freedom of every person to worship God in his own way. Freedom from want. Freedom from fear.

It is in ideological defense of this last freedom that over 4000 men and women from the Untied States have lost their  lives Iraq. They were sent to war with the protection of this freedom propounded as the reason for their action. No mater what their personal reasons,  no matter how History finally recounts the causes and meanings of the war, it will be in the defense of this freedom that our soldier’s sacrifice will be remembered by the public.

” Those who man our defenses, and those behind them who build our defenses, must have the stamina and the courage which come from unshakable belief in the manner of life which they are defending” stated President Roosevelt.

Popular cynicism would protest that patriotic propaganda was the  intent of that speech, and other orations that would mimic it in later decades. Yet I believe those ideals addressed continue to resonate in the  the conscience of most Americans, despite the sense we are divided along liberal and conservative lines.

It has been popular since the 60’s to accept the caricature of a Liberal as a “wide eyed” idealist, foolishly attached to the notion that a society rife with  “peace, love, equality” will evolve from freely handing out flowers wrapped in tax dollars, prelude to peoples of all colors and creeds holding hands and singing together of brotherhood.  It was this quaint notion of a “liberal” that George Will seems to have been assuming in a recent column about the differences in charitable giving between liberals and conservatives.

I suggest that in fact our Liberals and Conservatives have  changed roles dramatically since the 60’s; that our conservatives are far more idealistic than our wide-eyed liberals. We progressives have in the majority become proponents–as a result of practical experience gained in actually trying to “change the world”–of a common sense humanitarianism. Meanwhile our  counterpart Conservatives seem to have adopted an isolationist “shut eyed” stance based on the peculiar notion that some combination of prejudice and prayer are the keys to a good life; hands over eyes and ears, rocking along to the mantra “my country, right or wrong”.

The fiscal and political  ideals of the Liberals are more often based upon their personal experiences working in the front lines of social work, public teaching, NGO’s, or other non-profit, “society benefiting” organizations. While the humanitarian hopes that led them to take on this work may remain, any blurry idealism about the effectiveness of charitable or social  agencies that are attempting to function–cross current–within the free market economy has been long since washed away. Many of us have come to recognize that governmental policy devoted to protecting and promoting human rights is the soundest assurance that those rights will be continued and developed within the context of the social competition engendered by a fundamentally capitalist system.  Few of us contest the value of the freedoms  and opportunities that a capitalist system creates.  We don’t, however,  want to stand our freedoms on the backs of slaves, rhetorically speaking. In the stead of religiously biased or single issue charitable giving, we prefer seeking practical checks on the sources and outcomes of corporate practices; such that there is an attempt to  ensure the greatest good for the greatest number.

Certainly most of us, conservative or liberal, fully realize that under the conditions of the rapidly changing, unprecedented world economy,  sound, forward- thinking fiscal management on the part of the elected government is essential to the well being of all. With the current concerns about the limits of resources, the volatility of linked markets, and the unfamiliar frequency of sudden dramatic financial losses on the part of huge entities, there are few Americans who would argue our government can afford missteps. We are all of us looking for a leadership that seeks with open mind and firm hand to foster the interests of our mutual welfare in these unfamiliar times.

I suggest that the majority of  ”liberals” and “conservatives” today find common ground in our recognition of the need for a new model of leadership: a leadership not based on appealing to the empty symbols of flag waving jingoism or naive refusal to recognize cultural differences . We need a leadership that is not politically frightened of calling out problems (traditional “liberal” ground), nor of attending to and standing up for the qualities that make our country great (traditional “conservative” ground).

I doubt most Americans will tolerate a leadership that seems oblivious to our formidable role in a delicate and unaccustomed global stewardship of both finacial and ecological systems.  A leader attempting to rely on old formulae rather than seek newer, better understanding  of that role cannot  hold the support of the Americans, who, despite the gloomy tolling of popular punditry, are in fact far brighter and more perceptive than their “test scores” indicate.

We are also a good hearted people. I believe we have, as a people,   been more unconsciously guided by an intrepid belief in those “four freedoms” than we have wholly recognized. We are more of us willing to sacrifice in pursuit of making those freedoms  universal than popular wisdom would have us believe. And fewer of us willing to continue to accept such sacrifice in vain.

Those four freedoms could be seen as roughly composing the four points of our collective moral compass. In these unfamiliar times, a reference to that compass would be wise of anyone seeking to lead America. 

“Liberal” and “conservative” alike, I trust in our willingness to accept the responsibilities of freedom, although argumentative as to the nature of those responsibilities. Let no petty seeking for the excitation of conflict distract from the certainty that Americans are united–at the deepest level–in our tenacious love of freedom.

Democrats and demi-bras

Reading yet another front page article that has reduced the selection of a democratic candidate to the choice between two mere symbols, I am feeling dissed. The idea seems to have been accepted on a media level that what  those who vote in the democratic primaries exclusively care about is  which particular “social advancement” they plan to wave the flag of; gender or race. Which team are you on?

This may work for the young, whom I believe have adequately demonstrated over the last several elections that they enjoy the enterprise as a game, happy to participate in clever campaign stunts for recognized underdogs, or to earnestly answer telephone polls, however; they seem to find the actual process of voting equivalent to inviting the screen to advise them “game over”, and therefore avoid it.

The people who have stood in line, often for hours, to vote, I would hazard are those of us who have been financially independent long enough to have, at some point in our lives, idly contemplated the efficacy of committing certain illegal acts in order to feed our families. We care far more that there is a paycheck coming than the color or gender of the hand that signs it.

Branding seems to have sunk so deeply into the consciousness of the king makers (or, finally, queen makers) that they have come to expect that brand association is all there is left to the political process. Dudes, there are those of us who still make decisions by reading the label. Or the price tag.

Again, those of us who do may not be in the majority of political bloggers or you tube actors, but I would bet we damn well are in the majority at the polling places. The idea that democratic (or liberal) voters are swayed merely by symbolic meaning is either  condescending or short sighted. It is trying to sell thongs and demi bras to middle class mall-going  moms:  Victoria’s Secret wised up. Substance matters.

breastfeeding: getting eyeballs

You see a woman feeding her baby from her breast, in a public place.  Most people will quickly think it through and quell any gut reaction of shame and fear;  they are at the very least aware that the American Academy of Pediatricas recommends nursing a child for at least a year, and  may possibly have heard in passing of the many other benefits an abundance of research has attributed to breastfeeding.

But some don’t  quell that reaction: some act on it,  demanding a woman stop  feeding a baby in public, citing  it as an offense.  I’ve been considering what might be at the core of this gut reaction.

What about public breastfeeding is freaking out the starbucks latte drizzlers and retail assistant managers (not to mention media talking heads) around this country? The point has been adequately made that the average cover of Cosmopolitan available in the grocery checkout line shows more ta ta flesh than most women giving baby mee mee at the mall. And therein lies an explanation, and possible solution.

Breastfeeding is an inherently anti-market act. It does not require the repeated purchase of mass produced formula, and when done consistently, neither requires the purchase of plastic bottles and their accompaniment paraphernalia. Additionally,  the media has reported over time the considerable amount of research which suggests that breastfeeding encourages a much healthier baby and child, a child who may not need as much assistance from the pharmaceuticals industry as a pharmaceuticals industry executive might hope. One can add to that studies implying that there are health benefits to the nursing mother, as well, which accrue the potential damage to drug sales.

Perhaps the people feeling such intense shame and fear when noticing a woman breastfeeding are responding to their powerful insecurities about our market economy. Perhaps they are, at an atavistic level, perceiving breastfeeding as a threat to the complex consumer transactions that ultimately underlay their  personal livelihood. Are they afraid that baby on the teat is the counter economic force that could ultimately Destroy the American Way of Life?

Or could it have something to do with the visible breast flesh itself? Certainly the Average American sees plenty of bra-busting boobie everywhere he looks; it’s on tv, billboards, Internet, in movies, in the window of the local Victoria’s secret. So why are media displayed dairy-dispatchers accepted without protest, but on a live nursing woman, some visible portion of  pushmatahas can  provoke the citizenry to moronic excess?

Following the economic thread: the media uses mammaries to sell. Breasts in the media are associated fundamentally, through hypnotic repetition,  with the efforts to move product. Free market efforts, I will point out. It seems possible that one effect of advertising  has been that  breasts are now so chronically identified with sales, that the sight of a non-media presented, partially exposed breast in a public place must be causing great confusion in some unfortunate people’s minds: they have become so addled they cannot tell the difference between a woman feeding her child and a sex worker.

The solution? Nursing moms: Sell advertising space on your bosom ! That way, your breast is no longer subversive; it is being used for the purpose that has come, in our befuddled  culture-mind, to replace the breast’s true biological purpose. Now, ad plastered to your tit, you are supporting the Market Economy, you are helping to sell.  And sell product that can be clearly identified as NOT  that of the sex worker, to eliminate any sad confusion.

Ad’s on boobs should  calm the most sensitive observer; your public nursing will be met with the agreeable nonchalance that is now accorded a 20 foot billboard filled with the image of extruded lacto-fat. Plus, you make some extra cash: everybody wins!

“stuff white people like” and Obama’s speech

So you are a white, young(ish), well educated person–possibly with a liberal arts degree– and a few friends Of Color. You come across the blog “stuff white people like” and you get pissed off. You say “But, recycling is good! Buying organic is good! Helping the Poor is good! These guys are a******s for making fun of what I do.”  One defensive argument you may have resorted to, to shut out the goaded feeling you were left with, is Obama’s speech on Unity.  “Obama said we should all just get along, and this site is divisive! End of story.” Right, a closed mind. That’s what liberalism is aaaaaaalll about. Way to get your (parent’s) money’s worth from your education.

The entries on the “white people”  site–in addition to being sometimes brilliantly funny– seem to me exactly what we need to read just now. They are less about division than calling out America’s current batch of progressives on their collective devolvement into eerie competitiveness and pseudo-compassion. If we can’t face those facets of our “culture”–and oh yes, it’s funny because it’s true–we can’t begin to examine and repudiate them. Any insightful social humor offers the targeted audience a chance at self examination, and thereby, change. The “white” site gives us that. Finally.

Obama’s speech carefully grounded the “audacity of hope” within the context of  the ongoing “improbable experiment” that is our wonderful democracy. In it, he twice pointed out that we are in the process of “perfecting our union”, that  it continues to be “perfected over time”.  The speech calls on the “white community” of America to recognize that “the path to a more perfect union” means addressing issues “Not just with words, but with deeds”. So of course, you are a good liberal, you DO that already, right? You recycle, ride a bike, March on Washington occasionally. You have friends of color!

As Clander’s site cheerfully acknowledges, all too often we are doing these things to score “points” within our social network, not out of any overall investment in considered compassion or effective activism. Sure, we want social change, we want global change, we want the more perfect union. And most of us recognize the absurdity of, say, pushing a pink bed through Washington, DC intersections in order to achieve this (”look! A pink bed, impeding traffic. I must end the war now!”). But how is recycling absurd? Aside from the sad fact that many municipalities aren’t funded to support a genuine recycling program and that what gets picked up as recycling often ends up in the landfill anyway, it’s less that it’s absurd than that the  unrealistic self-satisfaction that comes from that ritual act may be blocking our consideration of ways in which we could be genuinely powerful.

One entry on Clander’s site points out the knee-jerk liberal hatred of “corporations”, and even Obama’s speech righteously sings of  the dismal behavior endemic to  “corporate culture”: I suggest that a blanket dismissal of “corporations” as the enemy prohibits a recognition that it is through the progressive community’s influence over these very corporations that we access one of our greatest abilities to effect change.

For example; on the (according to Clander, revered, although one has to assume only by those with televisions) Colbert Report, a recent guest was Dean Kamen, briefly demonstrating a water distiller that is capable of producing potable water from just about any water based liquid source through distillation. Kamen designed this to be portable and to be capable of running on an equally portable generator that can function on many fuel sources, including cow dung.

He has also partnered with a businessman who has previously used a successful distribution model to get cell phones in wide circulation among small rural villages; he has suggested it is his hope that the machines could be brought to water- needy localities (like Atlanta?) using a similar model, based on the employment of local  individual entrepreneurs and thereby maintaining and strengthening the integrity of the local economy. Most of those details, though, didn’t make it to the Colbert report. Also what didn’t make it is the need for a corporation to take on the mass production, or at least funding mass production, of the machines. It appears an economic risk and is not a popular corporate cause. And THAT’S where you “white” people come in.

One thing Clanders  site does hit on is that as a group, the well–educated and well–meaning Americans tend to have a whole bunch of influential  “buying power”, that has NOT gone unnoticed in coroporate land. In the last 10 years, how much easier has it become to find items labeled  certified organic? You can get them at 7-11! How often do you see “organic” ingredients and “recycled” materials touted as a selling point on products, often to ridiculous extremes? Isn’t one of McDonalds new adds (with all the fruit) targeted just to you? Yes, it’s a joke that McDonalds is somehow eco-friendly–the point is, they WANT YOUR MONEY, alot. Yeah, you, with the discretionary income and the reflexive socio-eco guilt. And this is  your secret super power!

Now, say you thought getting Kamen’s water machines to small villages in Bangladesh was a great idea; You could, of course, try to make one yourself, fly into Delhi, rent a yak, and hand deliver it, to the presumed grateful cheers of the people (up up and awaaaaaaaay). Nice fantasy, great photo op to put on your desk and home walls (”oh that? when I saved a small village in Bangladesh, no big deal…”). OR, on a possibly more realistic note, figure out a way to convince the big corpos that your money, and those of a large bloc of buyers just like you, is going to whatever  one of them is providing the funding for large scale production of the water machines. 

Maybe a you tube campaign (who writes letters anymore?), like one of the campaign or public service announcements:

Husband (in brand name fleece wear, standing near his clearly visible $10,000 bike): Honey, it used to be just the Prius was the environmentally friendly choice, but now there are other car companies making efficient little hybrids; How do we Chose?

Wife: Oh, whatever car company is funding production of the Kamen water distiller! That means our money helps support global well being in a tangibly effective way! I’d even pay MORE to get a car from that company, knowing the worldwide benefits of doing so!

OR, to get the major bucks from the totally evil PharmCo’s:

Husband: Honey, which brand of erectile enhancing sexual performance drug should I buy, and recommend to all my friends, thus increasing it’s market share?

Wife: Isn’t one of those companies funding production of the Kamen water distiller? Let’s buy a whole case of erectile drugs from them! Whatever we don’t use, we can donate to the poor!

Corporate profiling can be used at a more local level, for example only supporting by buying choice those with a record of non-discriminatory hiring  and racially diverse leadership (and damn good family leave/job share policies, while we are at it) . This sort of thing has been effective before, and continues to be a viable route to activism. We  CAN shake off the current progressive complacency that “stuff white people like” targets, and start put our energy less into ritual, social status gaining acts, and more into effective action. Buying power campaigns are easy, and FUN! Plus, everyone wins. Brainstorm one at your next dinner party!