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.