Do Unto Others
Oct. 8th, 2005 11:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luciabIt's awfully early in the morning (before 8 AM when I started writing) to be anywhere near a dilemma, never mind an ethical one. Maybe I'm not on the horns, exactly, since this isn't an immediate-decision sort of thing. Torn. I guess I'm torn.
Half of me-- I'd like to think the better half-- is a Quaker, as much as I'm any kind of religious at all. I like to think I'm honorable, but then I guess we all do. This half believes in "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Not before they do it to you, notice; big difference there. The whole thing at Abu Gharaib was horrifying to me because we are supposed to be the good guys. We're supposed to be better than that.
On a local level, we in the Society talk about honor on a more intimate scale-- how to treat our friends in the game, for example; occasionally someone broadens the discussion to how we treat those in the world around us. Store clerks, for example, or wait staff. And that's good. Honor and courtesy are good. Do unto others.
In between those extremes is national politics. Yeah, let's talk about honor in national politics. Is there any honor in politics? I'd like to think that the reason Kerry and the Dems didn't reply in kind to Karl Rove (who is still, (not once again) at it)and the Boat boys during the last election is that they took the high road.
Whether honor or chicken-shitedness was behind their lack of reaction, however, the result was the same. The general public believed the liars, in the face of logic. (What? Believe the men who were in the boat with Kerry, and the local people who were there or believe a group of men who admit they were nowhere in the vicinity of the actions in question? Lotchik? We don't need no stinkin’ lotchik!) Which brings me to my dilemma. They won. The country (right now, especially New Orleans) is paying the price. No, I'm not saying Georgie boy caused the hurricane, or that his administration is solely responsible for the deteriorating condition of the levees. The response afterwards, however, left in the hands of a crony's roommate as a political reward-- that's another matter. And while W didn't cause this hurricane, his environmental policies are contributing to global warming, which will increase both the number and strength of future hurricanes.
Back to the dilemma. Is it better to fight dirty-- to lower ourselves to their level-- to have a chance at winning? Is that the only way to win an election? Because it sure seems like that's what it takes. Or is winning elections the only way to change things? Back in the '60's and early '70's there was a lot of turmoil, and it wasn't pretty. I believe, however, that the fact that so many people were willing to fight for so long, finally sank into the general consciousness and began to make a difference in the way racism and the Vietnam war were perceived. I think all the hippies and wild-eyed radicals did make a difference. I don't think anything similar would work now, though. I don't see the commonality of will or the strength of conviction. Cindy Sheehan would probably disagree with that, though, and the ever fearless and honorable Rove has already started attacking her; I guess he thinks there's something to be concerned about.
I really don't want to think that if we cling to our honor then the nuts on the right will keep on winning. I always sort of believed in the pendulum theory of politics in the social sense, but I'm wondering now. Once court rulings change the meaning of the constitution, will it ever change back? Once "religion" (read Christianity) is integrated into government and the schools, how and when will it be-- can it be-- extricated?
One thing I find bitterly amusing is that Georgie Boy claims God as his own. Whatever he does is because God told him to. Anybody who disagrees with him is unpatriotic and un-Christian. I'm betting that he thinks what he is doing is honorable. (This article in Salon addresses the issue of the hijacking of religion for political purposes.) All his talk about moral accountability, though-- does he take any responsibility for his strategist, Karl Rove? I don't see any way possible to believe that Rove's tactics are honorable, or even remotely ethical. My guess here is that it's all considered to be "for the greater good" and therefore acceptable. I'm just guessing, here.
The issue that brought the question of honor to my attention this morning is Georgie's promise to veto the
anti-torture bill that recently passed the Senate. Because the Geneva Convention is obsolete, you know.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Ask John McCain, if I’m too wild-eyed for you. But can he win?
Half of me-- I'd like to think the better half-- is a Quaker, as much as I'm any kind of religious at all. I like to think I'm honorable, but then I guess we all do. This half believes in "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Not before they do it to you, notice; big difference there. The whole thing at Abu Gharaib was horrifying to me because we are supposed to be the good guys. We're supposed to be better than that.
On a local level, we in the Society talk about honor on a more intimate scale-- how to treat our friends in the game, for example; occasionally someone broadens the discussion to how we treat those in the world around us. Store clerks, for example, or wait staff. And that's good. Honor and courtesy are good. Do unto others.
In between those extremes is national politics. Yeah, let's talk about honor in national politics. Is there any honor in politics? I'd like to think that the reason Kerry and the Dems didn't reply in kind to Karl Rove (who is still, (not once again) at it)and the Boat boys during the last election is that they took the high road.
Whether honor or chicken-shitedness was behind their lack of reaction, however, the result was the same. The general public believed the liars, in the face of logic. (What? Believe the men who were in the boat with Kerry, and the local people who were there or believe a group of men who admit they were nowhere in the vicinity of the actions in question? Lotchik? We don't need no stinkin’ lotchik!) Which brings me to my dilemma. They won. The country (right now, especially New Orleans) is paying the price. No, I'm not saying Georgie boy caused the hurricane, or that his administration is solely responsible for the deteriorating condition of the levees. The response afterwards, however, left in the hands of a crony's roommate as a political reward-- that's another matter. And while W didn't cause this hurricane, his environmental policies are contributing to global warming, which will increase both the number and strength of future hurricanes.
Back to the dilemma. Is it better to fight dirty-- to lower ourselves to their level-- to have a chance at winning? Is that the only way to win an election? Because it sure seems like that's what it takes. Or is winning elections the only way to change things? Back in the '60's and early '70's there was a lot of turmoil, and it wasn't pretty. I believe, however, that the fact that so many people were willing to fight for so long, finally sank into the general consciousness and began to make a difference in the way racism and the Vietnam war were perceived. I think all the hippies and wild-eyed radicals did make a difference. I don't think anything similar would work now, though. I don't see the commonality of will or the strength of conviction. Cindy Sheehan would probably disagree with that, though, and the ever fearless and honorable Rove has already started attacking her; I guess he thinks there's something to be concerned about.
I really don't want to think that if we cling to our honor then the nuts on the right will keep on winning. I always sort of believed in the pendulum theory of politics in the social sense, but I'm wondering now. Once court rulings change the meaning of the constitution, will it ever change back? Once "religion" (read Christianity) is integrated into government and the schools, how and when will it be-- can it be-- extricated?
One thing I find bitterly amusing is that Georgie Boy claims God as his own. Whatever he does is because God told him to. Anybody who disagrees with him is unpatriotic and un-Christian. I'm betting that he thinks what he is doing is honorable. (This article in Salon addresses the issue of the hijacking of religion for political purposes.) All his talk about moral accountability, though-- does he take any responsibility for his strategist, Karl Rove? I don't see any way possible to believe that Rove's tactics are honorable, or even remotely ethical. My guess here is that it's all considered to be "for the greater good" and therefore acceptable. I'm just guessing, here.
The issue that brought the question of honor to my attention this morning is Georgie's promise to veto the
anti-torture bill that recently passed the Senate. Because the Geneva Convention is obsolete, you know.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Ask John McCain, if I’m too wild-eyed for you. But can he win?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-08 06:17 pm (UTC)First, there are a lot of people in the country who for various reasons are not very politically aware and/or don't see themselves as a real part of the political process (like those who think "my vote doesn't really count"). Those folks don't tend to seek out the details of a political situation or they get bored with them, and they're the ones most easily swayed by big headlines and repetitive soundbites and those who paint the situation in broad strokes. The Dems-- as exemplified by Kerry-- lose those folks by insisting on talking in nuances, and expecting people to make themselves more politically savvy in order to "get it", while the Repubs have understood that they will get bigger numbers by adapting to those people instead of expecting adaptation from them. So you have Kerry trying to be reasonable and erudite while Bushco. is essentially making finger paintings for the public. Now, I'd *love* to see more people actually take the time to involve themselves in civic affairs and try to understand issues in more depth (I might scream if I listen to another relative or coworker essentially repeat a banal headline as if that's all there is to it when they clearly haven't bothered to learn anything about the issue at all), and I am all for any effort that tries to wake up the country politically, but the reality is that there are probably always going to be people who can't be bothered and whose votes can only be won by making things simple and broad and memorable. The good part is that this, to me, doesn't automatically require playing dirty to win (although it's an effective way to play dirty). IMO, too many Kerry voters (myself included) were simply voting AGAINST Bush, while most Bush voters were voting FOR Bush, not against Kerry. Slamming Kerry was a combination swing vote tactic and showboating for the rank and file. People who voted for Bush were, I think, on the whole more interested in their genuine belief that he would keep them safe, that he was strong and in control, that he was a "regular guy" who understood them, and that he's deeply spiritual. Many of those same people are now realizing that that was all lies, which is why Bush's numbers are tanking hard.
The second part of the problem is that the Republican party over the last 30 years has, very deliberately and systematically, built an incredibly streamlined and effective political machine aimed at party unity and the goal of controlling all three houses of government. Meanwhile, the Dems have been fairly fractured along the lines of pet issues, with little unity and no grand vision, and with a leadership that is increasingly out of touch with the rank and file. That, I think, has more to do with Republican victory than playing dirty, per se, although the nasty tactics have been a very effective weapon in the arsenal. What we're seeing now is the culmination of decades of effort; and the goals of that effort have *never* been noble or honorable-- it's entirely about power and self-interest. The good news, I think, is that the progressive movement is capable of self-assessment and reorganization around our common values (including justice, fairness, compassion, opportunity, and yes, honor) and can learn a lot about what to do or not to do from the conservative movement's success. People are fighting back hard now, and even though it's an effort in its infancy, it's a good sign and I think it's an effort that will grow up fast.
I don't think that the political process requires playing dirty in order to win, per se-- but the extent to which it has influence over the political process is, I think, directly proportional to the extent that we as a culture value bloodsport competition over honor. It works because people treat it like a hockey game or wrestling match or something and cheer on the spectacle, hoping for the sight of someone getting the crap kicked out of them. I would like to think that some civility could be restored to the process, although I don't know how; on the plus side, though, I don't think that focusing on that tactic alone necessarily guarantees victory, and I think if your high road is strong and compelling enough, you can still win by taking it.