Otherizing

This week in my world literature and global issues classes, to accompany our study of Reading Lolita in Tehran, we have discussed the concept of "otherizing."  No, that is not a word in the dictionary, but allow me to explain:

"Otherizing" refers to idea that we have certain norms with which we classify our culture, and that anyone outside of these norms is the "other," and therefore completely different.  Take the example of the US.  Cultural norms of America say that we are white, Christian, English-speaking, and middle class.  Most Americans fit within these categories, and we thus define how we perceive ourselves and the culture we live in through this lens.  The "other," therefore, is anyone that doesn't fit into one or more of these categories - in the case of America, this can mean a black person, Jew, Muslim, Spanish-speaker, etc.  Once we have labeled someone as the "other," we tend to believe that, for everything we do and believe, they do and believe the complete opposition.  Take this example:

Part of the narrative in Reading Lolita in Tehran (see a previous post, where I talk more about the book) takes place during the 8-year long Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988).  During the war, the Islamic regime in Iran creates propaganda against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime and all of Iraq, calling Iraqis "heathens," and even "Zionists."  First of all, most Iraqis are Shi'a Muslims like Iranians, although Hussein's regime was Sunni.  And second of all, I wouldn't exactly call Saddam Hussein a Zionist (one who supports the Jews' right to a state in Israel).  But the Iranian regime sought to classify Iraq as the "other," and therefore assert that Iraq believed the opposite of everything Iran believed.  If Iran was good, Iraq was evil.  If Iran was Muslim, Iraqis were heathens.  The people of Iran could not understand the commonalities between themselves and Iraqis.  Maybe, had they not characterized them as the "other," but rather as similar peoples under rival regimes, they could have prevented such a destructive war.

So what does this have to do with our lives today, as Americans?  Well, today we fight in two wars against our nation's greatest threat: terrorism.  Robert Pape's article, "It's the Occupation, Stupid," in Foreign Policy, explores the narrative Americans have created of Muslims, and how that has affected our "war on terror."  He writes:

A simple narrative was readily available, and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Because the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill Americans. Within weeks after the 9/11 attacks, surveys of American attitudes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, "Why do they hate us?" and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of "who we are, not what we do." As President George W. Bush said in his first address to Congress after the 9/11 attacks: "They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

The growing belief among Americans, propagated by our President, that Islam caused the terrorists to attack us formed within our minds the concept of Islam as the "other."  Bush claimed that Muslims didn't believe in freedoms of religion, speech, voting, and assembly.  How could they?  We do, and they are the "other," so they must not.  Pape goes on to claim that our mission to Westernize countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, to bring democracy, women's rights, free trade, etc., stemmed from our belief that only our way of life was right, that it was either Western peace or Islamic terrorism.  This forced dichotomy created when we refer to Islam as the "other," or, in Bush's phrase, the "axis of evil," has brought us to equate Islam with terrorism.  Thus, this war on terror has truly become a war on Islam.

Unfortunately, the more we allow for this otherizing, the more the split between America and Islam grows, and the more the terrorists are out to get us.  Instead, I suggest we take a more open-minded approach, finding the commonalities and valuing the differences between us and the 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, most of whom have never even considered terrorism.  By humanizing, instead of otherizing, the Muslims, we can turn this un-win-able ideological war into a more pragmatic approach to counterterrorism.

The Lame Duck

With the election a month behind us, politicians can finally take off their campaign buttons and get down to the business of governing the country.

If only.

November 15 marked the beginning of the "lame duck session" of the 111th Congress, and our legislators are well on their way to getting little to nothing done in the home stretch of an already disappointing term.  Republicans have heightened their obstructionist talk, with all 42 GOP Senators refusing to bring any issue to the floor until the Bush-era tax cuts are extended for everyone and the continuing resolution (CR) is passed to continue funding the government.  Although these are important matters on the Senate's hands, Jay Newton-Small, writing for Time.com, notes that such issues are usually saved until the end of the session, and that this is merely a way for  Republicans to block action on Don't Ask Don't Tell, the new START Treaty, and the DREAM Act.  

So here we are, in another typical lame duck session of Congress only one month after millions of Americans showed their displeasure at the polls with the inaction of our legislators.  But I wonder how the term "lame duck" came do describe this legislative moment, and how it affects our perceptions and expectations of the session.

According to Ed Quillen, a columnist for the Denver Post, the term goes back to 18th century finance, where a "lame duck" was a stock dealer who could not pay of his/her losses, or someone who defaulted on a loan.  The phrase was first used in politics in 1863, and the first "lame duck" president was Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s.  Now, the term is used to describe an elected official in his/her final term, or one who was voted out of office but whose term has not ended.  In addition to this definition, The Oxford American Dictionary also defines "lame duck" as an "ineffectual or unsuccessful person or thing."  And thus, the "lame duck" session of Congress, the one-and-a-half month session destined to be ineffectual, unsuccessful, and, it seems, merely a formality, a buffer period before the inauguration of the next Congress, 

But why must it be so unproductive?

This blog, called "Goodbye Incumbents," points out that 81% of the next Congress beginning in January will be made up of incumbents, or people already in Congress now.  So, although the political balance of this 111th Congress is certainly different from that of the 112th Congress to come, most of the people in there were voted for to keep their jobs.  And plus, the electorate votes for 2 (or 6, in the case of the Senate) year terms, and these legislators have a job they were voted for to do until the day the next term begins.  The country still needs legislators to deal with real issues like the START Treaty and DADT - PM Vladimir Putin has already said that the failure of Congress to ratify the START Treaty this year could push Russia to build up its nuclear arms.  Maybe, if we stopped referring to this important session of Congress, especially after such a divisive election cycle and stagnant action the past two years, as a "lame duck" session, expectations would be higher for our legislators to address the critical issues of the day.  

So here's to a successful, not lame - and not particularly duck-like - rest of this session.

Who is Iran?

When I say "Iran," what do you think of?  An enemy nation, part of the "axis of evil?" A fundamentalist Islamic regime and a bastion of anti-American sentiment?  Millions of covered women and bearded men observing Islam and preparing for holy war, possibly with nukes, against Israel and America?

Although you may not believe all of the above statements to be 100% true, I'm sure some of these descriptions of the country a plurality of Americans consider to be the our nation's greatest enemy sound familiar.  Indeed, they have come to define the media and political discourse on Iran for years, especially since the "war on terror" began.  But as I learn more about the government and people of Iran in my global issues and world literature classes, I have come to realize the dangerous fallacy in viewing all of Iran in such an antagonistic and closed-minded light.  Although there are those in Iran that wish to see the fall of Israel and the demise of the West, to understand the scope and extent of these beliefs in Iran is the responsibility of every American, especially those in charge, who wish to see a more peaceful Middle East and world.

Reading Lolita in Tehran, written by Azar Nafisi, an English literature professor who taught in an Iranian university before forming her own private class of seven bright Iranian women to study banned literature (more complete summary here), exposes the thoughts and experiences of the students' lives as they explore other people's fiction as well as their own.  As the women seek to discover their own identity under a regime determined to eliminate, or at least homogenize, it, the reader sees the complexity of these women underneath the chador (traditional Iranian veil).  Most of these students wear bright colors, western clothing, party with bootlegged alcohol, and all of them have an identity more individual than the Islamic regime - and our own media - would have us know.  In fact, in 2008, only one-fifth of Iranians surveyed held an unfavorable view of Americans, and most wanted more exchange between the two countries (according to Juan Cole's book Engaging the Muslim World).  Although many in the Islamic regime hold anti-American views, it is clear that the government and the people are not the same.

From a historical standpoint, the divergence between the people and government of Iran is clear, if we take the time to look.  After two revolutions to overthrow the monarchy ruling Iran were thwarted by Western nations, Iranians were finally able, in 1979, to overthrow the American-backed Shah.  Leftists, communists, feminists, Islamic fundamentalists, and many groups in between revolted against the Shah, but the religious Muslims under Ayatollah Khomeini was able to form a government.  The Islamic Republic of Iran was born before many revolutionaries realized it, and the Ayatollah silenced his opposition enough to centralize power.

The current Islamic regime does not represent the vibrant Persian culture veiled in Iran.  To understand this difference is a crucial first step in facing, or, perhaps optimistically, in working with, our nation's "greatest enemy."

We're all soaked now

On election night, November 2nd, one word seemed to be on every voter's mind and on every pundit's lips: wave.  The midterm election that resulted in Republicans taking control of the House of Representatives and making huge gains in the Senate and statehouses around the country was, as Fox News reported, an "historic" wave, with Republicans "thundering" into Washington.  This metaphor of election as wave is one that has swept the country and that politicians are riding to gain power (see what I mean?).

In my English class this week, we learned about conventional metaphors, or those metaphorical comparisons prevalent in a society's everyday language that influence its conceptual system (for a fuller definition with examples, click here).  The election as wave metaphor has come to define our understanding of elections, with the past 3 elections being called "wave" elections, and the election of 1994 carrying the same label.

So what does the election as wave metaphor mean for our political system, and for our nation as a whole?  The New York Times reporter Matt Bai, in "Another Election, Another Wave," notes the effect of these sweeping wave elections.  Politicians, he claims, take these waves as mandates for power, governing unilaterally because their party won significantly more votes than the opposition.  And it seems, on some level, that both politicians and the rest of us now expect waves every 2 years, with some Republicans already acknowledging that they could loose power in 2012 if they don't embrace tax and spending cuts (see this article in the Philidelphia Inquirer).  This growing expectation of wave elections has led to increased partisanship and rule under perceived "mandates" that are as transient as, well, waves.

In addition, David M. Kennedy, in an opinion piece for The New York Times, draws parallels between the wave elections of late and the paralyzing partisan oscillations (another word with wave connotations) of the late 1800s, the Gilded Age.  The Gilded Age was certainly not a time of memorable political achievements; in fact, it was a time of great corruption and inaction in the face of dire issues.  That sorry trend seems to be repeating itself today.  Although this may mean we will eventually ascend from the partisan shuffle into a successful and beneficial movement like the Progressive movement under Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, right now we seem to be stuck in the political limbo of wave elections.

But, beyond historical comparisons and political punditry, the election as wave metaphor reflects the short-sightedness of voting Americans and those they elect.  A Pew Research poll found that Americans are considerably less happy with the results of this last midterm wave than with previous wave elections.  Clealry, the huge majority in the House and Republican wins elsewhere do not reflect the public opinion of Americans with much proportion.  Americans got swept up in this wave, with the news media and politicians proclaiming it days and weeks before the election even took place.  We have come to understand elections as waves, avenues for wiping out the ruling party and sweeping in the minority for a few years.  With the election as a wave, politicians are not rewarded for making the tough decisions and sacrifices necessary for America's long term stability (just look at the unpopularity of the recent report by the bipartisan deficit commission).  Instead, they must resort to wave-creating, short-sighted partisanship.

The metaphor of election as wave, although it sounds both powerful and refreshing, is really neither, and is certainly not a comparison that will pave the way for American success.  Rather, the US after the November 2nd wave is soaked in stagnation.

P.S.
For a comical interpretation of the election as wave metaphor, watch this video from Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.  As he says, all the phenomena being compared to this election, including the wave, "killed thousands of people."

Sanity

Last Saturday, October 30, satirists Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert hosted the Rally to Restore Sanity (or, satirically, the March to Keep Fear Alive) in Washington, DC.  Over 200,000 people attended the rally, and over 2 million watched on TV.  A blogger for the Washington Post calls it our generation's Woodstock.  Clearly, it was a big event with meaning for many people, including me.

But, when I heard the title of the rally, I began to think about the meaning of the word "sanity."  The Oxford American Dictionary defines sanity as "the ability to think and behave in a normal and rational manner," "sound mental health," and "reasonable and rational behavior."  So what does it mean, in the context of Stewart and Colbert's rally, to restore sanity?

At the rally, people carried signs with messages ranging from "Real patriots can handle a difference of opinion," to "Does my ability to spell make me a socialist?" Stewart and Colbert performed various skits mocking the polarization and irrational antagonism visible in Washington and on the cable news networks. As one conservative rally-goer put it, the rally was about both sides "being able to take a joke...because we talk to each other, not shout at each other."  Another man said, "I'm tired of the silliness."

Thousands of people showed up to the rally in support of a more sane politics, one that, to use the definition, is more reasonable and rational.  To them, sanity means civilized discourse, compromise, tenants our country was built upon but seem lost amidst the vitriol of politics and 24/7 punditry.  As John Avlon wrote in an opinion piece for CNN.com, "We have to work together to solve problems, but our polarized politics and the partisan media are stopping our ability to reason together as Americans."  But why didn't Stewart call it the "Rally to Restore Compromise/Understanding"?  Because sanity is what we expect from each other, it is "normal," as the definition says, and it is necessary for the functioning of a successful society.  The word carries meaning for more than just the politics of the day; it is what our nation has relied on for hundreds of years and what it must revive for the future.

I think Jon Stewart defined sanity best.  At one point in his serious and sagacious closing speech, he pointed to a jumbotron screen showing traffic merging into a tunnel.  He then made up identities for the drivers of the cars on screen, from a gay investment banker to a fundamentalist vacuum salesman.  He said that, although the occasional jerk will cut off someone in the merging process, most of the cars will merge peacefully and without incident, whatever their beliefs or the political affiliation of the bumper stickers.  And the jerk will be chastised, not put on cable TV or in government.  That is how America functions every day.  That is sanity.  And that is what the Rally to Restore Sanity aimed to bring to Washington DC last Saturday.

Bipartisanship: What the Congo Can Teach America

While reading Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible this week, I found myself engrossed in a salient political commentary that every American, legislators and voters alike, can learn from (for a summary of the book, click here).

In Kilanga, the village where the Price family carries out their mission, public decisions are made not by majority vote, but by complete agreement.  The chief meets and discusses with villagers until everyone is content with the decision.  After the Congo gains independence from Belgium in June 1960, however, the villagers of Kilanga become enamored with elections and the democratic process.  Soon, they are voting during a church service on whether they should follow Nathan Price and his Christian teachings, or voting in a tense village meeting on whether Leah, one of the Price daughters, will be allowed to participate in the village hunt.  As democracy becomes the new fad in the village, divisions arise, tensions heighten, and what should have been a festive post-hunt gathering became a town fight, with elections springing up left and right over every minute conflict.  Ultimately, the unity that kept the village together for ages dissolves, just as the rest of the Congo falls into discord.

Clearly, the democratic process did not work to the benefit of the villagers.  Although democracy functions (for the most part) in Western nations, the idea of a simple majority rule serves to split apart villages and tribes in the Congo that rely on total unity to face extreme existential threats from nature and, well, their Western colonizers.  Historically speaking, the election of Patrice Lumumba as Prime Minister of the Congo in 1960 and the factional divisions that followed threw the fledgling nation into a spiral from which it has yet to escape.

The tendency of democracy and elections to incite division in the Congo draws parallels to today's political environment in the United States.  Today's Congress finds itself so paralyzed by partisanship and obstructionism that barely anything can get passed, and nothing of substance, it seems.  The American population is deeply divided, and between liberals and Tea Party-ers there seems to be little common ground.  Whichever way the midterm elections go, the only certainty is that a large sect of the population will be discontented, and tensions will rise.  Bipartisan compromise has given way to stubborn ideology, reasonable dialogue to hateful attacks.  In fact, Tata Kuvudundu's (Kilanga's medicine man) ad hominem attacks on Anatole, a friend of Leah's, resembles starkly the political attack ads of today.

Yesterday, Jim Kennedy, a former spokesman for democrats such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore, wrote in The Huffington Post an imagined speech by President Obama called "Give Bipartisanship a Chance."  In it, "Obama" calls for a cease-fire on attacks from both the Democrats and Republicans, a "unity of purpose" to "redeem [the American people's] trust in us."  Kennedy acknowledges that partisanship and political games are an integral part of the enfranchisement and decision-making process of Americans, but also that these very games, when taken to today's extreme, are detrimental to the nation.  Some, like Paul Krugman, argue that Obama and the democrats have attempted bipartisanship in the past, but that the Republicans are undyingly obstructionist.  Although there is some truth to that, the fact is that only with compromise and mutual understanding can the United States face the myriad issues of today.

The Poisonwood Bible, in narrating the disintegration of Kilanga, offers a powerful literary example of why simple majorities do not always fit the bill.  Our politicians would be wise to listen and learn. 

In Us vs. Them, Everyone Loses

Before I begin this week's post, I must offer you this disclaimer: I am Jewish.  I believe completely and whole-heartedly in Israel's right to exist and prosper.  I make my following arguments not to hurt Israel; rather, I critique Israel because I love Israel.

With that, let us begin...

Today, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu offered to extend the moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank (a practice the UN has found to be in violation of Palestinian sovereignty) if Palestinian leaders were to officially recognize Israel as a Jewish state.  The Palestinians immediately refused.

Yesterday, the Israeli cabinet approved the addition of a "loyalty oath" to citizenship laws that would require every non-Jew applying for citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state and democracy.

These are just two in a slew of Israeli policies and positions emerging to further restrict the rights of Arabs, 20% of Israel's population, incite resistance and violence, prevent a peace agreement, and undermine the very values upon which Israel was formed.  By forcing Arabs seeking citizenship to swear allegiance to a nation that has shown it does not want them while simultaneously showing disregard for the sovereignty of Palestinian territory, Israel is inhibiting negotiations of a peace agreement and the eventual, much-needed two-state solution.  Indeed, by insisting on one controlling state that denies Arabs equal rights and the right of self-determination, Israel endangers the survival of the very values the loyalty oath was created to defend: Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state.

If Israel hopes to fulfill its Zionist mission, it must avoid and reverse the "us vs. them" ideology that has come to plague its policies.  While history offers us many examples of the failure of this ideology, I refer you instead to a valuable piece of literature that I'm reading in my English class: The Poisonwood Bible, by Barbara Kingsolver.

The Poisonwood Bible follows the Prices, a 1960s Baptist family from Georgia, on a mission to the Belgian Congo (for a more complete summary, click here). The Price family, led by the Reverend Nathan, struggles to adjust to life in the Congo, to understand the Congolese people, to recognize the incompatibility of Christianity with the village's way of life, and to accept the legitimacy of the Congo's autonomy and independence.  Several of the daughters, but Nathan especially, enter the Congo choosing ignorance and isolation from the native culture rather than understanding and accepting it. As the Prices become the last white family in their village and in much of the Congo, their strict us vs. them dichotomy serves to only further endanger them and inhibit them from realizing any of their goals -- personal, religious -- or even to survive.

Israel now faces a choice, as it always has to an extent, between the "us vs. them" view that both history and literature teaches us is destined to fail, or a measured and pragmatic negotiation of its current position in order to salvage its long-term viability.  Again, Israel today cannot be both a Jewish state and a democracy.  If it embraces and favors only Judaism, it strips equal rights from a significant sect of the population, and therefore is not a democracy; if it gives equal rights to all the Arabs in its territories, Jews will soon loose their demographic majority in the region and loose control, thus eliminating the Jewish state.  Israel cannot have both, just as Nathan cannot both force Christianity on the Congolese people and survive in a foreign country with few other whites and little independent means.

In the game of us vs. them, nobody wins.

A Loss for Identity, a Loss for America

Two weeks ago, the US Senate failed to pass a defense bill that would repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) policy on homosexuals in the military.  This policy, which allows gays to serve as long as their sexual orientation is not revealed, has led to the discharge of over 14,000 soldiers since its creation in 1993, including those with crucial skills in Arabic, medicine, and counterterrorism.  It discriminates against people for who they are, for something they have no control over.  It forces gay soldiers to hide their true identity, to live in paranoia for fear of being found out.  And, according to a recent federal court ruling, it is unconstitutional.

As Americans, we must push to end this discriminatory law; as young Americans, we must lead the charge.  Why?  I'll start with a story:

Jonathan Hopkins was a captain in the Army, graduated 4th in his West Point Class, and served three times in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He was discharged in April for homosexuality.  He writes in a New York Times blog of the debilitating paranoia and depression gay soldiers live with when anyone can report them as gay and inhibit their ability to serve their country.  DADT robs gay soldiers of the right to their own identity, forcing them to lie to protect a secret they cannot control.  When a soldier cannot be who he or she is, then how can he or she fulfill the duty of soldiers to be completely honesty with their fellow troops?  This "mandatory ignorance," as Hopkins calls it, works contrary to psychological well-being and success of soldiers, the values of the military, and, indeed, to the American values we hold most dear.

As I mentioned in my previous post, pop star Lady Gaga gave an impassioned speech in Maine on September 20th urging Maine's moderate Republican senators to repeal DADT.  “I’m here because ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is wrong. It’s unjust and fundamentally it’s against all that we stand for as Americans," she said.  She decried Republican Senators for using homophobia to justify discrimination and the military for rewarding homophobia and inhibiting openness.  She stands as a reminder of the responsibility young, open-minded Americans have to support equality and justice in our nation, an echo of the '60s students who fought for African Americans' rights and an end to the Vietnam War.

The fact that 44 senators can and have forced over 65,000 of our troops to continue hiding their true identity from the comrades with whom they live and die is an unacceptable crime against our American value system.  But the battle is not lost.  Federal courts around the country have declared the law unconstitutional and demanded its immediate end.  We have a president willing to cease its enforcement, if only Congress had the egalitarianism to repeal it.  And this is not only a liberal movement.  As a "Young, Hip, and Conservative" blogger notes, while DADT was a step in the right direction in 1993, it does not reflect the more tolerant military and society of 2010.  With 79 percent of 18-29 year olds, the age of most soldiers, supporting an end to DADT, and 70% of all Americans, the time is now to repeal.

America has always moved towards equality, with the young often leading the way.  DADT is detrimental to identity, cohesiveness, our constitution, and our nation.  Discrimination must end; equality must prevail!

And, as Lady Gaga said, "If you don't like it, go home."

Hello and Welcome

Hello Reader,

Welcome to my blog!  My name is Daniel.  I am a senior at a high school in suburban Chicago, and my greatest passions are music and public policy.  I have interned for congressmen and congressional candidates, I follow political, economic, and international relations news, and I plan to pursue these studies in college.  I'm also a member of the Academy of International Studies at my school ("the Academy" for short).  I am taking a class in world literature and one in contemporary global issues as part of the Academy, and I will be incorporating ideas from both these classes into my weekly (or more frequent) blog posts.

I will try to show you my process for understanding and analyzing political issues and discourse through my posts, and I hope to be as clear and comprehensible as possible.  I will also try to be unbiased and balanced in my discussion of the issues, although, I admit, I have been raised as a liberal and consider myself a Democrat.  But I'm always open to new ideas, new perspectives, and I enjoy the debate over what is the right answer more than the answer itself.

Please feel free to comment on any/all of my posts, whether you want to agree, disagree, or say something completely different.  As I said, I'm always open to new ideas.

I'll leave you with a preview of my next post:

Lady Gaga said on Monday at a speech in Maine supporting the bill to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" the following: "Equality is the prime rib of America, but because I'm gay, I don't get to enjoy the greatest cut of meat my country has to offer."  It's both refreshing and depressing that our pop stars are standing up for equality more boldly than are our legislators...

Mostly depressing.

Until next time,

Daniel