Stewart's argument was that corruption was not best confronted by, or at he suggested the fight ought not to be confined by, narrow political views of like-minded Americans. The battle for real right against real wrongs, real evil, was far too important for such a restricted dialogue.
He argued that on this basis both FOX and MSNBC shared certain traits that were worthy of criticism. Maddow, pointing to several cases of well financed and choreographed so-called protest, suggested Stewart was positing a fall equivalency between real protest on one side and movement on the levers of power on the other. For the most part I thought Maddow got the better end of the argument, but Stewart’s idea of opposition to corruption without party affiliation, especially the freedom it must provide in contrast to party dogma, was compelling.
I am so liberal, so attached to my own secular theology, that I get sick of myself sometimes. I am frustrated with the Democratic Party, often finding it a weak counterpart to the colossus of wealth and power which is today’s GOP. Though I prefer no label or category, I find progressive or liberal so much more an agreeable attachment or location to occupy than Democrat. Millions of Republicans have made it pretty clear they feel the same away about the GOP.
So it seems to me that this must mean that there ought to be some things we can agree to, moments when we all should be able to identify the corruption among us. There should be moments when we don't attach our flag of political belief, either in support or opposition, to someone, and we should not always define our most firmly held beliefs in a purely political context.
In recent weeks, we have been subjected to a series of statements that ought to on their own give us pause.
There are over five million undocumented Mexicans in America. Is it possible that all of them are criminals? I look at all the immigrants in my community. I see mothers and fathers with their children, tiny voices dancing on the summer wind, and workers, sun-baked men with clothes worn from the activity of physical effort. At the bagel store, the grocery, and in the public space or the bike path, I see my neighbors, and cringe at the words that have been repeated in our public discourse, ad naseum. Do I need to be a follower of one political party or another to denounce the awful things that were said, to feel the urgent desire, indeed the demand, to stand with my neighbor?
Assuming that the practice institutionalized in the term “anchor baby” is actually a real thing, the term still refers to the use of a baby, an innocent and helpless child. The Washington Post has run more than one article pointing out the folly of using your children as an immigration strategy, so much so the political argument, though repeated endlessly, is null and void. But even if the practice were true, have we no mercy for the family or the child at the heart of such desperation?
Critics on both right and left use Nazis and the Holocaust as metaphors for any and all manner of political exercise with which they disagree. During the Iraq war protesters frequently carried images of Bush and Cheney with the Hitler mustache, and during this administration conservatives have trotted out the Hitler analogies for all manner of protest, including opposition to the Affordable Car Act. Some, who like me, are extremely frustrated with the militarist policies of are so-called ally Israel have tried to use the imagery of those memories as a blunt sword to cut down Netanyahu. Nothing could be more obscene. Every time I hear these comparisons I feel the wound on the souls of the six million. Rather than a metaphor for evil, the Holocaust is the greatest known example of the existence of evil. Now to score cheap political points rather than point to the final solution as an evil for all times, it’s thrown around like a sports statistic, against which modern day players can be measured.
And now
this.
Appearing at the Eagle Forum, Former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, said this about the refugees pouring into Europe from the Middle East:
“Are they really escaping tyranny, are they escaping poverty, or are they just running because we’ve got cable TV? I don’t mean to be trite — I’m just saying we don’t know.”
As a political statement this is an awful, appalling, sentiment. But we have grown numb to awful, immune to appalling. The hypocrisy is enraging, especially this statement, coming from a man who has spent the better part of the last several weeks vaingloriously espousing his so-called Christian values.
I'll be the first to admit that the religious faith of my younger years is lost to me now. I cannot decipher the scriptures in the way many of you can and I’m sure still do. But I understand the admonition-- common to all monotheistic religions-- that places love and charity at the highest altar of human endeavor.
"For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;"
I have heard these words dozens of times before. When the challenges are deemed insurmountable we are told to have faith. Heard those words too. I never understood the statements to be orders, but even on the road I now travel they seem to be fairly important aspirations. I posted briefly about Huckabee’s words last night, but they linger with me even now. What Huckabee said is more than out of step with how I feel or the political views of the party I will support in the next election. To me, they should stand, as Stewart suggested, in an area where red-state blue-state should carry little value. They are more than improper. If we respond to them purely on the basis of our political perspective, don't we surrender something to the inherent political calculation that inspired such immorality?
Are we truly lost to this now? So committed to winning political victory or scoring points in that arena that no morality or shame penetrates the personal armor of our ego or our political arguments?
Joseph Welch was the chief counsel for the United States Army while it was under investigation for Communist activities during the McCarthy hearings. He is famously quoted as confronting the abusive Senator, who destroyed countless lives with the question, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
I feel that way now, or rather the way I can only imagine some must have felt then. We are caught in a vortex that only spirals faster and deeper. Every day seems to bring a more astounding surrender of our ethics and values. We are told we are a Christian nation, or at least one of profound faith, but our politics too often either reflect none of that or a distorted fun-house mirror image of what true morality would look like. Huckabee's comments are cynical, ugly, and selfish, and that is the best that can be said of them. They are easy to condemn, but tomorrow's another day, and another opportunity for fresh moral compromise.
The refugee crisis is a metaphysical crisis for America and for the world. Easy solutions are not in sight. We can choose now to stand with those who are suffering, in spirit and action, or we can excuse corruption.
Does this mean America should volunteer to house 800,000 refugees as Germany has done? Probably not. Is this the time to sort out who was at fault and whether western powers shredded an opportunity presented by the Russians in 2012 to get Assad to step aside and leave the country as reported in the Guardian today? I hope not.
But maybe, just maybe, we can hope and put that hope into action through political power. Let us hope that in our collective conscience we still have some sense of decency, at long last some tiny shred of decency.
No comments:
Post a Comment