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.  

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."