Farewell for now

Dear Reader,

I hope my blogging over the past 8 months has shown you an interesting perspective on the politics around us.  Although I do not always claim to be unique, I can promise that every post came with deep thought, consideration, and questioning of my opinions.  This year in my English and history classes has been a great intellectual journey for me, much of which has been charted in this blog.  As I write my final post of the year, I want to leave you with one final thought:

Everyone has reasons for believing what they believe.  Understanding those reasons is not the same as abandoning your own beliefs.  On the contrary, it can make your own beliefs stronger.

I started off the year in English class discussing the book The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien.  My class learned about the unique power of stories to communicate actions, thoughts, and feelings.  We discovered that we chart our own lives in terms of stories, even though our lives do not always follow a series of coherent events, and that the narratives we use to describe our lives can define us.

In reading The Poisonwood Bible, by Barbara Kingsolver, we saw the dangers of failing to understanding the stories and perspectives of another, in this case those of the Africans the Price family encounters.  From Azar Nafisi's novel Reading Lolita in Tehran we learned, just as Nafisi's students did, that reading the literature of lives far from us can teach us much about our own.  And in Shakespeare's Hamlet, we saw how failing to see past a ghost and its craving for revenge can drive a man to madness.

But outside of literature is where I have come to see the truth of my above statement.  The political world, especially here in the US, has become in many ways a more polarized place than when I began blogging.  Every issue, from the national debt to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, has come with two stories: the Democratic one and the Republican one.  Americans can watch their favorite news channel, read their favorite newspaper, talk to their favorite people, and never hear the other story.  When those two stories are forced to collide, collide they do.  There has been little cooperation and understanding across the aisle, and it has left every American worse off.

Worst of all, we have lost respect for others' beliefs.  We think only our reasons are valid, and that others are somehow faulty.

This is not acceptable.  The United States is one of the most cosmopolitan nations in the world, with an infinite number of stories making up the patchwork we call America.  Our greatest strength comes in our variety of perspectives.  If we chose to learn from them, we could learn so much.  But instead, we choose to force these stories into a simplistic narrative, preferring a series of 30-second sound bites over a true discussion.

So I challenge you to this: start up a conversation.  A controversial one.  Talk about religion, politics, morals, values.  This will force you to put your beliefs to the test, to find out where you truly stand, not just where it is easiest to stand.  You will learn something about yourself by learning something about another.  Do not plan on changing your beliefs - if you have good reason to believe them -  but do not swear it off either.

On a billboard in my English and social studies classroom, there hangs a bumper sticker.  It asks, "If you can't change your mind, are you sure you still have one?"  As I continue my educational journey, starting with Harvard University in the fall, I hope to further solidify and understand my beliefs, and I hope to change my mind again and again.

Thank you for reading my perspective, and thank you even more for commenting with your own.

Always,

Daniel

A letter to the president

Dear President Obama,

Last Friday, when the government shutdown was narrowly averted by the budget agreement, I was not pleased with the man whom I had supported so passionately in the 2008 election.  In fact, I didn't know where he went.  The budget agreement represented to me an ideological surrender by you and the Democrats to the extremely erroneous economic and fiscal policies of the Republicans.  If there was any compromise at all, it was between Representative Boehner and his tea-party subordinates.  The Republicans had you and the Democratic congressmen held hostage, and they got what they wanted.

But your speech on Wednesday reaffirmed my faith in you, in Democrats, and in the integral nature of the federal government as not just a parasitic drain on our wallets and our freedom (as the Republicans would have us believe).  What I saw on Wednesday was not the thoughtful yet tentative president so willing to compromise that he came off as without conviction.  Instead, I saw the hopeful, deep-thinking, persuasive and audacious candidate of 2008 who convinced an ailing country to have Hope. 

As this article in the Washington Post points out, the speech came across as more of a campaign speech than a pure policy recommendation.  But today, when Republicans are campaigning every day through their media outlets (ehem...Fox News...ehem), convincing the public not through reasonable policy but stubborn ideology to agree with them, the speech set exactly the right tone.  After the budget agreement, I wasn't sure where the Democratic party had gone.  But on Wednesday, the compassionate, egalitarian, and foresighted policies that I've come to respect and support finally reappeared in Washington.

The narrative that taxes are always bad and spending cuts are always good, the narrative that has prevailed in Washington since the new session of Congress began, is being touted as the single truth of American fiscal policy.  Paul Ryan's budget proposal gained considerable credit as a "serious" framework to address our deficit crisis (see Paul Krugman's blog for his thoughts on that assessment).  So I thank you for taking on these policies, and Ryan's proposal specifically, in your speech.  Americans must hear the truth about the misguided and implausible nature of this proposal, and, as our President, you can and should fill that role.

I hope to be able to write many more of these letters thanking you for keeping liberalism in America alive.  After last Friday, I thought effective liberalism in Washington had disappeared.  But on Wednesday you reminded me and many fellow Americans what Democrats have to add to our government and our well-being.  I hope this continues, and that the final 2012 budget reflects not only America's responsibility to address the budget crisis but also to ensure the well-being of all Americans and get the economy working for everyone.

Thank you.

Where's the other side?

Opening my email on Friday, I was disappointed (and yet slightly amused) to see an email from my congressman in my junk mail folder.  Robert Dold, my tea-party-leaning, freshman representative, had been kind enough to notify me of the budget deal made late Friday night in the bowels of Capitol Hill.  There was no indication of relief that a government shutdown had been averted; instead, his message was a blatant pat on the back for himself and his fellow Republicans.  I'd like to focus on a particular sentence:

"The new House Majority has made tremendous strides, altering the debate on Capitol Hill from whether or not we should cut spending to how much we should cut. It's amazing how much can change in just a few short months!"

As disheartening as I found that proclamation, seeing as I am generally on the opposite side of the political spectrum, I couldn't deny that it is entirely true.  At this point, there are two sides to the budget debate in Washington: those who believe government spending should be slashed as much as possible, and those who are too scared to argue.  So, effectively, there is one side.

Throughout the week, we saw Republicans take the budget deal hostage, and we saw Democrats in Congress and the White House give in.  So evident was this surrender that, as Paul Krugman points out, Obama didn't seem to notice he was defeated.  In fact, he was celebrating the avoidance of a government shutdown when he and his party had given in to the largest spending cuts in US history.

So where is the other side?  Where is the president who approved the largest stimulus package in US history as an appropriate fiscal response to the financial crisis?  Where are the representatives who approved this package along with monumental financial and health care reforms?

I don't know, but they're certainly not in Washington.

Last Friday, as the looming threat of a shutdown came to the forefront of political discourse, Krugman wrote a scathing column entitled "The Mellon Doctrine".   He criticized the Republican policy that spending should be slashed, taxes should be cut, and the budget imbalance should be immediately addressed in the midst of a still-painful recession.  And while this isn't particularly shocking, for the Republicans have always ignored the 80 years of economic theory that clearly calls for an increase in government expenditures to make up for the loss in private expenditure and investment inherent in a recession, it is depressing nonetheless.  At this point, their fiscal policy resembles uncannily that of Herbert Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon.  And we all know how successful that was (see Great Depression).

Yet Krugman's more depressing point still was that Democrats have no response.  Despite the (albeit limited) success of the stimulus package in preventing even worse unemployment, and despite clear historical evidence showing the devastating effects of trying to balance the budget in the midst of a recession (see Japan's "lost decade" and, again, the Great Depression).  And despite the clear failings of current austerity measures in places from England to Portugal and beyond, the Democrats can do nothing but hold out for $33 billion in cuts instead of $38 billion.

A democracy cannot function without two reasonable parties.  For more evidence of this, see Nick Kristof's recent column.  At this point, with the Republicans proposing a budget for 2012 that cuts taxes for the rich while cutting programs for the poor and elderly, and contains absolutely no concrete evidence that it can indeed decrease the deficit, it's fair to say that, at least on this question of the budget, one side is unreasonable.  And, with the other side resigning to the role of a less extreme version of the first, they are both unreasonable.  That 0 for 2, incase you were counting.

It's hard to be optimistic in these times.  As my friends from around the world who will be attending Harvard with me next year ask me why my country, the "greatest democracy in the world," was so close to a government shutdown, I could give no real answer.  The behavior of our leaders is ineffective, inexcusable, and undeniably damaging to the future of our nation.

Hoping for peace

Today, Benjamin Netanyahu's government approved the construction of 500 more settlement houses in the West Bank.  The US government, the Palestinian Authority, and much of the international community has condemned Netanyahu's decision.  An aide of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the move "unacceptable".


Clearly, Netanyahu's decision moved us further away from a much-needed peace agreement to end the unsustainable occupation of the Palestinian Territories by Israel.  So why, when he himself has called a one-state solution "disastrous" for Israel, has Netanyahu put up another obstacle in the way of peace?

Netanyahu's response has been three-fold: to claim that this new settlement construction is focused in existing large communities that would remain with Israel in any peace deal; to criticize the international community for quickly condemning Israeli settlements while being slow to condemn the murders of the 5 Israelis; and, all the while, to posture as opposed, on some level, to the very construction he approves in order go seem open to compromise in the peace process.

This is unacceptable. This editorial in Haaretz, written a few days before Netanyahu's decision today, questions Netanyahu's ability to lead Israel to a permanent peace agreement with the Palestinians after words and actions showing his inability to compromise. He continues to blame Abbas for making unreasonable requests as preconditions to peace talks - while claiming that he himself has done much to bring Israel back to the table. Both of these views, along with being basically false, are incompatible with the conciliatory efforts necessary to address the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

But there is a reason for it: Netanyahu faces great pressure from the right wing within his government to encourage settlements in the West Bank and maintain a hard line in the face of calls for compromises from Israel. Many in Israel fear compromising with Arabs now, when the Arab world is becoming more politically vibrant and, likely, more anti-Israel, will put Israel in danger.

Furthermore, the US, while claiming to be on Israel's side by voting against a recent UN resolution condemning the West Bank settlements, is encouraging Netanyahu's actions. As Stephen Walt points out, Obama's tentative chastisements of Israel's actions are not protecting Israel, but instead alienating Arab opinion away from both the US and Israel. And why is Obama so tentative?

Because he wants to get reelected. End of story.

So, as in so many other cases in our world today, politics has gotten in the way of peace. Let us hope that Netanyahu, Abbas, Obama, the Israelis and the Palestinians see the light and work towards the hope of lasting peace in a region sorely in need of it.

Education: It's not everything

This past Friday, March 4, President Obama gave a speech at Miami Central High School alongside former Florida Governor Jeb Bush about the growing importance of education in our economy.  As we emerge from the recession, he argued, companies will be looking with unprecedented force for highly-educated workers to increase productivity and create a new generation of American prosperity.

Unfortunately for us humans, many companies have already found these high-skilled workers, and they work for free.

Paul Krugman, in a recent column entitled "Degrees and Dollars", refutes the conventional wisdom that receiving a college degree will dramatically increase your chances of getting a well-paying job.  Instead, citing a recent article in NYT, Krugman notes that rising levels of technology have allowed companies to efficiently carry out tasks for a fraction of the costs associated with college-educated human labor.

Today's economy in America is often described as increasingly "hollowed out".  This means that more jobs are available at the lowest and highest levels, but that middle-income jobs are less prevalent.  Technology has been blamed for this hollowing out, since mid-level jobs can often be completed by computers with much more efficiency than with humans.  But now, as the NYT article shows, technology has begun to fill higher-level jobs formerly done only by those with college and even doctorate degrees.

And, as this editorial from NYT shows, unemployment among college-educated Americans under 25 line up with average unemployment levels almost exactly.  So, nowadays, a college degree doesn't guarantee a job.

Still, as someone who anxiously awaits college notifications, I firmly believe that college is the best path to success, as it always has been in America.  First of all, America's universities are among the best in the world, and the innovation that has fed America's prosperity for decades is in large part due to their integral nature in our culture.  Second, innovation is predicated on humans with critical thinking and entrepreneurial abilities, things computers can never replicate.

But that doesn't change the fact that technology will increasingly hollow out the economy, creating greater class separations and eliminating the middle class, if not kept in check.  As I read through the hundreds of comments on Krugman's column, I noticed a great one making the connection between this hollowing out phenomenon and Karl Marx's prediction about capitalism.  He argued that, eventually, technology and globalization would drive down wages to the point that the proletariat would rebel and socialism would emerge.

Both Krugman and the NYT Editorial Board argue that health care reform and more collective bargaining rights for workers, to name a few, can help revitalize the middle class, keep wages up, and keep American capitalism working for everyone.

Now, how can education play a role in that success?  Although a college degree may not guarantee a well-paying career today, it can bring about the innovation that is key to the success of the American middle class in the future.  And the government must take an active role in improving primary, secondary, and higher education accessibility and standards for this innovation to take hold.

So, to sum up, Krugman is right, and so is Obama - but for different reasons.

Wisconsin: A Marxist Approach

Paul Krugman is a Marxist. 

No, you have not stumbled upon some right-wing blogger criticizing the liberal economist's every New York Times atricle.  In fact, I'm not criticizing Krugman at all.  Instead, I've noticed that his recent column about Wisconsin matched markedly with one of the critical approaches to literature and history that I have studied in my English class this week. 

I'm not calling Krugman a socialist.  But the way he has analyzed Governor Scott Walker's attempt to remove public-sector unions of their collective bargaining rights deals with power, class struggle, and other considerations that Marxist critics take into account. 

Let's remember that, before writing on economics, Karl Marx was a historian who viewed all of history in terms of class struggle.  Later, in Das Kapital, he added economic idealogies of socialism and communism as the eventual next step after capitalism, and thus we remember Marx as the founder of socialist thought.  But Marx's view of history in terms of power and class struggles - the oppression of the proletariat - applies clearly to Wisconsin's struggle today.

The crux of Krugman's argument is that unions are the last powerful lobbying voice for the working middle class among countless influential lobbies of Wall Street investors, bankers, and the rich.  This is the best argument I have heard for maintaining collective bargaining powers for workers - more convincing than merely arguing that budget shortfalls caused by this bargaining are not that bad, for everyone will have to sacrifice in the interest of fiscal responsibility.

And while articles like this, printed in The New York Times, note that this measure would not really cut debt but just put it off, Walker and other Republicans insist that workers must make sacrifices.  Furthermore, Walker has said that unions are not serious about coming to the negotiating table.  As both Krugman and the NYT article note, budget shortfalls could be corrected in other ways, such as higher taxes on the rich, but the Governor is unwilling to do this.

This case is just one example of what a Marxist critic would call class struggles in politics today.  Last year, when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire, Obama was forced to let the cuts continue for the rich as well as the middle class.  Although it was clear that tax cuts for the rich were economically unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible, many Americans and their representatives insisted that the rich continue to benefit at the expense of everybody else.  And even though about 55% of Americans supported ending these cuts for the rich, the bill went through, showing the power of the wealthy lobbies and the upper-class status of the legislators.  This is just one of many examples of the immense power of the upper class, and is an example of why Krugman calls modern America an oligarchy.

From a Marxist standpoint, it is clear to see that power is concentrated with the upper, ruling class.  At the end of the day, union workers will likely be powerless to stop passage of the budget bill stripping their rights.  Public sector unions will thus lose power in Wisconsin and, with the precedent set, possibly other states as well.  And the rich will gain even more influence within our state houses and in DC.

The angry protests of teachers, engineers, and other union workers in Wisconsin are a possible sign of the uprising of the proletariat.  In the Marxist view of history, this is just another step along the road from capitalism to socialism to communism.

I, however, would prefer to keep capitalism around.  So please, Wisconsin, say NO to the bill!

Democracy: With Us.

At the outset of the Egyptian protests, the United States was in a strange position - awkward at best, devastating at worst.  The people of Egypt rose up against the dictator America had propped up for almost 30 years, and our choices seemed to be between promoting democracy or maintaining our strategic hold on this powerful Arab state.  In fact, just last week, I expressed my hope that America would remain on the side of democracy and not support despotism over uncertainty.

President Obama has navigated this uncertainty quite well.  In a speech on Friday, after Mubarak tendered his resignation, Obama praised the Egyptian protestors for their relentless march toward democracy.  He called their nonviolent means inspiring, voicing his clear and unambiguous support for democracy in Egypt.  As Nicholas Kristof puts it, Obama finally "left wishy-washy behind."

And indeed, Obama's handling of the Egypt situation, as many other commentators have said, is to be praised.  Marc Lynch, in his blog for ForeignPolicy.com, notes Obama's almost-immediate recognition of America's back-seat position in the movement.  He and blogger Michael Cohen both point out that the administration worked first and foremost to ensure the safety of the Egyptian people, dealing behind the scenes with the Egyptian military to ensure a "soft landing".

And yet, Obama insisted that democracy now was the only option.

In addition, the language and tone of his speech on Friday is especially noteworthy.  By alluding Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "arc of history" line - the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice - , and later including MLK's name directly, tied Egypt's narrative with perhaps the most inspiring, and most uniquely American, movement in our history.

He also used words like nonviolence, words coined by Ghandi's revolutionary movement in India, to further connect Egypt's struggle to the ideals of freedom and equality that we all share.  It is both impressive and encouraging to see a US President tying together the complexities of foreign policy and international relations with our most basic values as a people.

Obama's moves over the past few weeks may well be remembered as his greatest foreign policy achievement to date - the ouster of an Arab dictator and the (hopeful) triumph of a true democracy in the Middle East.  Obama's support for the Egyptian people should serve as a warning to other oppressive dictators in the Middle East that, if your people demand democracy, we won't stop them.

But I'd like to remember Obama's speech on Friday as a dramatic shift in the way we speak about democracy in the Middle East.  No longer are we bringing democracy over in tanks and planes, bestowing it upon people whether they want it or not.  Instead, we are giving legitimacy to the democratic urges of much of the Islamic world by allowing them to make the first move and showing that we will help them if asked.

As Lynch points out, Obama has now overseen the removal of two Arab dictators within the past few months - Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt.  Hopefully, with the tone set on Friday and throughout the past few weeks, the arc of history will continue to bend towards justice, towards democracy.

Please let me know what you think about this topic, my post, or anything else by commenting here.

Democracy: With Us or Against Us?

As the protests in Egypt continue, one phrase seems to be on everyone's mind: Mubarak out, Democracy in.  This is the goal of the Egyptian protestors occupying Tahrir Square in Cairo, and it is what hundreds have died and thousands have been injured for in these past two weeks.  Finally, after the lives of thousands of American soldiers have been lost in two wars waged to spread democracy to the Middle East, the people of a Middle East nation have gone to the streets in a revolution for representation and freedom.

And yet, America is afraid.

The United States fears the ouster of Egyptian "President" Hosni Mubarak (I use quotes because the word president implies a real election), a dictator we have supported for 30 years.  Despite his despotic rule, Mubarak has taken billions in US foreign aid to maintain a "cool peace" with Israel, and Americans from Obama down fears democracy will allow Egyptians to elect leaders less willing to compromise their beliefs for some cash.

But, as columnist Nicholas Kristof insists in his recent blog post, we should not worry about democracy in Egypt.  Indeed, I say, we should celebrate it.  And here's why:

Americans have been taught to see democracy and Islam as diametrically opposed; one is Western and just, the other is foreign and dangerous.  The protests in Egypt, however, have come to show that democracy has an increasingly crucial place within Islam.  In an opinion piece written yesterday in The New York Times, policy expert Reuel Marc Gerecht asserts that democracy not only represents the justice and freedom so integral in the Islamic religion, but it can work well in Egypt.  And he cautions us not to think of Egypt today in terms of Iran in 1979.

In 1979, a fundamentalist Islamic movement took power in the political vacuum left by the removal of a Western-supported despot carried out by a democratic revolution of the people.  Sound familiar?

The stage seems set in Egypt for a repeat of '79 Iran, a political shift that led to the rise of an oppressive Islamic regime that continues to pose perhaps the greatest threat to peace in the region.  But the movement in Egypt offers several stark contrasts.

First of all, as both Gerecht and Kristof note, the Muslim Brotherhood that seems poised to take the lead in the democratic process in Egypt has been forced by the Egyptian populace to abandon its most authoritarian theories of government in favor of representative rule.  The long-term rule of the Muslim Brotherhood is subject to a large group of Christians within the country that will be at the polling places keeping them in check.

In addition, the Islamic population of Egypt is mostly Sunni, not Shi'ite, and thus the leaders of the Brotherhood are not Ayatollahs and religious heads - those that fill the power structure of Shi'a tradition - but lay people, some with liberal beliefs.  Both columnists note that these leaders can and must be more receptive to the needs and wants of the Egyptian populace, and, even if they do rise to power, they will be held accountable by the energized voters of their nation.

The Egyptian protests offer Americans an important lesson: Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive.  Although Mubarak's ouster could worsen relations between the Egyptian government and both the US and Israel, at least in the short run, this does not mean we should prevent democracy from taking hold.  For, as the bringers of democracy to the world, we cannot choose to whom it goes and when.

Indeed, I say, it is a sign of America's grand successes over the past 250 years that people in far regions of the world, who hold ideologies quite opposed to ours, want to model our system.  Egypt's democracy may come about just how ours did - in a hard-fought revolution against an oppressive regime.  Let's take this opportunity to separate ourselves from this oppression and be the nation that escaped the grasp of tyranny and created a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Just because, this time, these people aren't all white Christians, does not mean they're not people.

Why the State of the Union speech matters

On Tuesday afternoon, hours before President Obama delivered his second State of the Union address, Stephen Walt wrote on his blog for ForeignPolicy.com a post entitled "Why the State of the Union Speech doesn't matter".  Walt argues that neither the vitriolic rhetoric of politics nor the substance of policy debates will be changed by what Obama said last night.  He writes: "What matters isn't what Obama says tonight, but what he and his advisors, and the Congress ultimately do." 

While I find Walt's argument persuasive, that Obama's greatest achievements have come through intricate, even behind-the-scenes planning and deal-making than through lofty rhetoric, Walt's thesis still gives me pause.  For, indeed, Obama's words last night were both decisive and carefully chosen - and they will impact the way we frame our discussion of America's greatest issues going forward. 

So, let's take a look:

Obama's main theme throughout the speech was competitiveness, that America must "win" to succeed.  Indeed, he used the phrase "winning the future" numerous times in the speech.  This message served to create a sense of unity for all Americans through these tough times, that Americans can come together to confront the troubles of today for a better tomorrow.

This message reminded me of FDR's First Inaugural, in which he declared a "war against the emergency" - the emergency being the Great Depression.  But America is not in nearly the same state as it was in 1933, and Obama's use of winning certainly adds a more positive spin than war-like language.  Still, the goal is the same: to unite the country against a common enemy, be it the Great Depression or the slow emergence from the Great Recession, and to come out on top.  And Obama outlines the tools we need to win, including bipartisanship, innovation, education, and government involvement where appropriate.  In this way, he creates his own definition of winning, making it both appealing and all-inclusive enough to attract most Americans and assure that his policies triumph over those of his opponents.

But, as I listened to Obama's calls for winning the future, I can't help but wonder whom or what we are trying to beat.  Are we merely trying to defeat our nation's economic woes?  Or does Obama's language represent a desire to maintain economic advantages over emerging economies such as India and China?  Should we still be speaking in these terms when our nation's prosperity - and solubility -  is increasingly tied to that of these other countries?  Do our claims of American exceptionalism have any serious place in the globalized world of the day?

Paul Krugman wrote a column last week, in preparation for the SOTU, about the "Competition Myth" that pervades Obama's recent speeches and policies.  To view our nation as "America, Inc.," as Krugman puts it, may appeal to our capitalist values, but a nation is not a business.  If it were, then unemployment would mean efficiency and profit, and social welfare programs would only hinder growth.  Other countries would merely be competitors to undercut, not possible allies in an increasingly complex world.

Instead, I hope that Obama's message of competitiveness will be applied in a similar fashion to FDR's war on the emergency, with the government taking an active role in reviving the economy and providing for the shared prosperity of the entire nation.  As a classmate of mine, Nick, put it in a recent blog post, perhaps the game we are trying to win is one like Tetris, a one-player game where efficiency and foresight prevails.  I, and Krugman, I imagine, would prefer this game.

Either way, this paradigm of competitiveness will have an influence on Obama's policies and actions, and those of the people around him, for at least the rest of his term.  If there's one thing we can take from this phrase of winning the future, it is that we can not take the future for granted, that we must work for the goal of keeping America great.  Maybe it doesn't mean beating anyone else, but it certainly will require teamwork and sacrifice.  That was Obama's strongest message in this year's SOTU.

Please let me know what you thought about his speech and about my post.

Book Review: Animal Farm

A few days ago, in passing through the occasional boredom of this year's relaxing winter break, I picked up a thin book with a white cover and decided to read it.  Little did I know that George Orwell's Animal Farm would be both an enriching piece of classic literature and the perfect book for me to share with you in this first post of 2011.

George Orwell (actually the pen name of Eric Blair), a British political author, wrote Animal Farm in England in 1943 and '44, and it was published in August 1945.  Click here for a summary of the book.  Animal Farm is at its core a political commentary, a scathing critique of Soviet Russia delivered through the allegorical story of farm animals.  The parallels are clear.  Major, the sagacious, idealistic and revolutionary boar represents V.I. Lenin; Napoleon and Snowball, the two pigs vying for power after his death, represent Stalin and Trotsky, respectively.  The transformation from an egalitarian community of farm animals to the tyrannical rule of Napoleon under the new mantra, "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others," takes place right under the noses of the very animals that revolted against their human owner's tyranny.  The striking parallels established in the characters are impossible to miss, especially for an educated audience in the mid-20th century, and the tragic outcome thus makes the reader view more critically the Soviet regime that was so revered during WWII. 

But for readers today, what is most frightening about this story is not the cruelty of Soviet communism, but rather the way in which it came about.  Although the revolutionary animals inscribe Seven Commandments on the barn house enumerating the values of old Major, only some of the animals can read them.  For those who can't read and aren't clever enough to memorize them, the Commandments are simplified into one phrase: "Four legs good, two legs bad."  This simplification is first in a string of alienations done by Napoleon and the other pigs to twist the original doctrine of Animalism to their own self-serving interests.  Indeed, Napoleon and the other pigs use their ability to read, write, and negotiate with humans to assert intellectual superiority over the other animals, thereby justifying any inequality and blinding the animals to this injustice.  The disempowerment of the "lower animals", as they become called, through the manipulation of political ideologies and what amounts to brainwashing by their rulers shows the dangerous power of inflated ideologies to destroy even our most deeply held values.  Ultimately, the distinction between the pigs and humans disappears, and the animal revolution ends before the very animals who fought for the revolution know it.

So, as we enter this New Year, one in which our government will likely be even more divided than before, our legislators, and all Americans, must make the choice between holding steadfast to ideology and compromising some positions in order to address our numerous challenges.  Just as Orwell saw the distinction between the socialism in which he believed and the Soviet perversion of that ideology, we Americans mustn't blind ourselves to the intricacies of political thought.  And as the Seven Commandments of Animalism became reduced to a simplistic phrase, we must be wary of politicians and ideologues who transform complex issues into simple slogans and sound bites.  Indeed, that is what makes American democracy different from Animal, or Soviet, tyranny.  

This, I believe, is Orwell's message to his readers, and is the reason Animal Farm is as relevant today as it was 65 years ago.