Ten-to-One

Over the last few weeks I’ve tried to write about political matters in a way that focuses more on the issues than the particular candidates in the upcoming elections. I’ve also tried to describe my thoughts about these issues in different ways than we normally hear around the water-cooler or in the hallway debates. The media and the campaigns not only tell us where to stand on the issues, they decide what the issues will be, and they give us a frame-work on defining the issues. Over the last month we’ve had a chance to see four debates (if you want to call them actual debates) for the Chief Executive jobs- President and Vice-President. Having watched all that, and keeping close track of the public reactions to each debate I’ll comment on the issues that have come to mind for me in the closing weeks of a campaign that seems to have gone on forever. I have no illusion that anything I say, or for that matter, anybody says will be persuasive to anyone or change minds at this point. After all, one third of the country has already voted, and I don’t know of a single “undecided” voter. I tend to agree with comedian and commentator Bill Maher when he says that if you’re an “undecided voter” at this stage, you’re an idiot. This has been going on so long and had so much coverage that anyone who can’t decide by now just hasn’t been paying attention, or is too addled to cast a coherent vote. I also believe we are so polarized that most Americans knew who they would vote for months or even years ago- regardless of what happened or what was said.

It’s no surprise I am among those who decided a long time ago that I would be voting Democrat in this race. But I hearken back to one of the opening events in this long, protracted campaign season that really stuck with me. The date was April 11, 2011-more than a year and a half before the election. Fox News was sponsoring a Republican Primary debate. All eight of the Republican contenders for the nomination were there trying to out-conservative the other. Near the end of the debate the moderators were getting frustrated as they tried to get any of the candidates to be specific about tax increases in the face of growing deficits. Finally the moderator asked for a show of hands if the candidates would reject a deal that provided one dollar of tax increases in exchange for ten dollars in reduced government spending. The candidates all looked at each other- then one-by-one each raised their hands. (You Tube this priceless moment)

Yes, it was a long time ago; and yes, it was during the primaries. For my money this was the seminal moment for the Republican Party. That one moment told me more (than any other single moment)what governance would be like, whether a Republican wins the Presidency or Obama is re-elected. That one gesture re-confirmed everything I had seen in the previous years as Republicans obstructed the President at every turn- and everything the Republican Party would do if they gained the White House. It told me that an intractable, radical, right-wing agenda had so captured the Republican Party that nothing can break through the ideology of this new wacko Party.

Our system of government requires compromise, and for many years the ability to compromise was actually considered to be the art of governing. Those who were willing to find compromise and still maintain their core values were called “statesmen”. Today, no one even uses the word “statesman” because the qualities of statesmanship are lost. Every new President in my memory has promised to change the culture of Washington, and every single one has failed. I don’t view that as a failure of the President who couldn’t pull it off, be it George W. Bush or Barack Obama. It is the failure of our political evolution as a people that values stubborn ideology more than governance. We tend to thrive on polarizing conflict- and turn everything into a blood-sport.  This is the FoxNews approach that says: everything we do-good; everything they do-bad. Even conservative icon Ronald Reagan compromised. His methods would be called treason by today’s Republican Party standards.   

The Republican Party has proven they had no intention of compromise or governance. They vowed that beating Obama was their prime objective and they proved it. They have stopped every economic initiative the President proposed by a record number of filibusters in the Senate, then they go on the campaign trail to say the President failed work with them-and failed in general. After all the crazy talk in the Republican Primaries, Mr. Romney is furiously trying to find a tenable moderate position on just about every issue. The debates with the President have really illustrated this. In order to curry the favor of the radical elements in his party, he had to raise his hand with those clowns to say "I wouldn’t even take a ten-to-one deal". Yet in recent weeks he’s talking a very different line on health care, taxes, and even abortion. He talked tough about the President’s “failed foreign policy” then turned around in the foreign policy debate and adopted the very policies the President is implementing. Mr. Romney has really boxed himself in- it’s just that we can’t figure out which box he’s in because he’s got a different position every time he speaks. Even going back to that fateful day in April of 2011 when he said he wouldn’t take a ten-to-one deal, we have ask how he plans to govern when he adopted an all-or-nothing position. I know he’s changed his position now (yet again!)- But which one is the truth? If elected, will he honor his pledge to Grover Norquist or his promise to work with the other party like he claims he did in Massachusetts? Should we believe that his “business experience” is his main qualification to be President, or be skeptical of a businessman who turns down a ten-to-one deal? What reasonable businessman does that? It’s all very confusing at best, and pandering nonsense at worst. But it seems to be working.

Perhaps Mr. Romney is the candidate we created. Perhaps his “say anything, do anything” approach to campaigning is the method we’ve wanted all along and he’s just the guy who perfected it. Perhaps he’s the candidate who is capitalizing on the culture we’ve fallen in to. It is a culture that likes immediate reward without much effort or thought, so we can just go along with the last thing we heard because it’s too damn hard to keep track of reality. Political and economic reality is hard and complicated.  I can’t think of a better explanation for a guy who changes his position constantly then even tries to tell you he never had the old position in the first place. (Never-mind that pesky video tape) President Obama is not the ideal President and his record isn’t perfect. There have been failures – but there have also been triumphs. And any reasonable person (and I emphasize REASONABLE) would say he probably did the best anyone could have done with the total mess he inherited. But at least he is not a chameleon changing his appearance depending on the surroundings. This is predicted to be a very close race, and I’m sure it will be. I believe the President will win re-election, but I’m coming to grips with the possibility Mr. Romney could narrowly pull it out- it’s that close. It’s been said that no matter who wins, the next President will have a difficult time governing because the members of the House and Senate will claim the winner does not have a clear mandate. I don't know how Mr. Romney could possibly have a clear mandate when he doesn’t have a clear position. But, like I said, maybe that’s what the people want-a malleable person who will just tell us what we want to hear.

The ten-to-one pledge that night also reminded me that this involves more than a President. Just like football quarterbacks, Presidents often get more credit than they deserve, and more blame than they’re responsible for. That debate in April told me that our Congress will hold the key to the future as much as the Chief Executive. In the last two years the Republican led House has been shameful in their inaction and their disregard for the welfare of the nation-all for the purpose of beating the President.  The Senate Minority has used the filibuster to stall any meaningful aid to the country. Just before the last recess the Senate even filibustered a jobs bill to put returning war veterans back to work. That’s how committed to creating chaos (based on ideology) the Republicans have become.

We can’t count on the next President to change the culture of Washington. The ten-to-one debate showed us the truth about today’s political climate. The solution comes from citizens who refuse to allow business as usual. It starts from the ground up- with us telling our Representatives and Senators we will vote them out unless they start heeding the will of the people, regardless of Party. This is where we can have the most impact as voters and constituents. The one thing almost all of us agree on is that we are sick of the dysfunction created by destructive adherence to an ideology instead of a commitment to governing.

Thanks for looking in.

Women's Issues

 With all the talk of how close the Presidential race has become, the news pundits have been dissecting the race by micro-examining each sub-group of the electorate. One of the groups getting a lot of attention over the last months and most particularly over the last weeks has been women. The conventional wisdom is that President Obama is stronger on “women’s issues”. That really got me thinking about what makes an issue- a “woman’s issue”. After much thought I concluded that dividing issues by gender is a very subtle way of continuing to discriminate against women.

I started thinking of the kinds of issues that have been assigned to women. One of the ways we can see which issues have been designated as a woman’s issues is to look at the issues that have occupied our First Ladies. I think it goes without saying that if one of our First Ladies had actually been President; these issues would have been far from the national front burner. But, as you know, we have never had a woman President. (Though I’m absolutely convinced that Hillary Clinton would have been President if she could have beaten Barrack Obama in the primaries- there is no way the country was going to elect a Republican after the Bush fiasco) Since that didn’t happen, let’s get back to the “women’s issues”. Almost every First Lady has had a pet project and many have been worthy matters needing our concern, but none of them important enough to be dealt with from the Oval Office. Dolly Madison led an effort to care for female orphans. Jackie Kennedy’s passion was refurbishing the White House. Pat Nixon promoted volunteerism for women. Barbara Bush was active in promoting literacy, and Laura Bush promoted education. Lady Bird Johnson spearheaded an effort for national beatification. Let’s not forget Nancy Reagan’s youth drug abuse campaign. Betty Ford worked to provide more mental health care, and Michelle Obama’s campaign is to address childhood obesity. That’s just a few, but nearly every First lady had her issue or project.

Looking back at these issues, a pattern begins to emerge. These issues fall into categories that fit well with female stereotypes. We see care for children, education, hearth and home- beautification, and women’s volunteerism. In essence these causes have almost exclusively been about kids, schools, houses, pets, and giving the “ladies” something to do.  I’m not saying that many causes championed by First Ladies were not worthy causes, I’m merely saying these causes tend to fit a stereotype that can be seen as “lesser” causes. The only time a First Lady actually tried to move the country on a serious and important issue was the work Hillary Clinton t did to create a national health care system. President Clinton asked his wife to lead this effort and I think we all remember the result. Hillary Clinton was mistreated by the Congress (even members of the President’s Party) and the public, and was roundly criticized on every front. My memory was that the criticism went well beyond the issue itself, and it became a scathing personal attack about her “place” and even her femininity. Mrs. Clinton never again enjoyed the kind of positive public regard afforded to most First Ladies. Of course she went on to become very successful on her own as a Senator and Secretary of State. But in her role alongside a man, she was severely constrained by her gender.

We never designate certain issues as "Men’s Issues". Our culture has simply assigned the big issues to men by default. In matters of war, politics, high finance and industry, and governance our first image is never that of a woman at the seat of power. There are notable exceptions, but they remain exceptions. I challenge you to research how many women are CEO’s of the Fortune 500 companies. You’ll see a few, but only a very few. Look at our Congress and you will see a shockingly low percentage of women. Our current Senate has only 17% women, while our House of Representatives has 18% women. Women are one half of the country and less than 1/5^th of the body that governs it. Perhaps we just like our women to stick to those lesser issues.

If we look to the “Women’s Issues” at play in this election an even more disturbing pattern emerges. Our institutional discrimination against women has now turned its full force onto the glaring aspect of gender. The political debate is now focused on women’s sexuality and reproduction. When we allow these issues to be placed in the category of “women’s issue”, we are unwittingly engaging in a just another form of discrimination against women.  Sexuality and reproduction by their nature involve both genders. But we have allowed our politics to place all the responsibility, all the stigma, and all the guilt on women. Unfortunately it is women who normally bear the consequences, and have to face the judgments of others. But, I argue that this part of our culture is just wrong and needs change.

Listening to the political debate, you hear the arguments about who gets to decide what kind of medical coverage  women have available to them, including contraception (woman’s issue)- personhood amendments (woman’s issue)- who can get funding for reproductive health care (woman’s issue)- what defines rape as opposed to "forcible rape" (woman’s issue)- and even if fair and equal pay should be protected (woman’s issue). As you think about these issues remember that over 80% of those who will decide the outcome are not women. To even consider these issues is to place women alone, in the position to be judged about their sexuality, morals, and their characters. (Remember the Limbaugh “slut” remark) This is a fundamental issue of human rights. And even as all the male captains of industry and leaders of government smugly decide the fate of women’s bodies and their very status as citizens, very few males have stood to defend women against this degrading categorization or offer to fully share the burden now placed on women.

Women’s issues are men’s issues too. Fair and equal pay should be a matter of economic justice for men just as it is for women. Women are in men’s lives- we can’t separate the welfare of one gender without effecting the welfare of the other. Fundamental issues concerning women’s’ reproductive choice and health should be as important to the fathers, sons and husbands as it is to the women in their lives. To allow the politicians to create a false distinction about what is important to women does a disservice to both genders. It is that kind of thinking that has held women to a lower status throughout time. I hope we can evolve someday to a position of true gender equality. It starts with recognizing that “women’s issues” are human issues and it takes acceptance of that fact, and reason to stop the cruel stigmatizing that happens now. Wouldn’t it be a different world if every time some congressman (and those doing it now are all men) decides to introduce a law that, in any way, effects a woman’s body, sexuality or reproduction, there has to be an accompanying law that effects a man’s body, sexuality or reproduction with equal force? I think we would see the end of this kind of discrimination very quickly.

The political war on women is not new. Men throughout history have controlled women by regulating their reproductive lives and sexuality.  Over the last two years legislative attacks of this nature have gained  momentum in our State Houses and in the Congress. To stop this most fundamental form of hatred and disdain for women we must call upon our best instincts and our best behavior to make it stop. One way to start down that path is begin the realization the issues we call “women’s issues” are equally important to men. That makes them fundamental human issues and we all have a responsibility to protect them-both men and women. Relegating these issues to the category of “women’s Issues” only perpetuates the problem, and lets half of us off the hook.

Thanks for looking in.

Lying to People

Let's be honest, everyone has lied. I think the act of lying can be almost as natural as the act of speaking. None of us wants to admit our penchant for lying, and being called a liar is a horrible thing. But we have to face it, lying comes pretty easy for most people. Of course, I don’t mean that we're all pathological liars or we all lie compulsively. But most of us have a pretty sophisticated rationale for telling lies. We lie about little things, and tell ourselves that it’s OK because this lie ”doesn’t really matter”. If a little lie makes it easier for us to navigate our day and “nobody really gets hurt”, what difference does it make? Sometimes we forgive our own little lies because we don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings. Why crush someone with real honesty when we can just as easily pass off a small “white” lie and spare their feelings? Wouldn't it be just be cruel to tell the real truth? For example we might say, “We found a more qualified candidate for the position”, instead of saying “you were so weird during the interview that you scared us”.

I’ll be the first admit, I’m among the liars. When you get right down to it I can’t think of single person who hasn’t told a lie of some kind. Well intended, or just plain crooked, every one of us has done it. If you think you’re exempt from this most human of behaviors ask yourself if you’ve ever “fudged” your income tax return by over-valuing that charitable contribution, or claiming a larger expense than you really had. Ask if you’ve ever told your kid something you know isn’t true. “Yes Billy, Santa Claus is real”. Did you ever call in sick when you weren’t sick- then tell yourself you’re entitled to a “mental health day”. Did you ever work for “cash” so you didn’t have to claim the income? or pay cash to avoid the sales tax? Did you ever promise you would do something, knowing you were going to get out of it? I could give examples all day, and I know you could too.  Lying has become such a common behavior that we have even developed a whole set of commonly used phrases to indicate we aren’t lying. How many times has someone (or you) begun a sentence by saying, “to be quite honest”, or “honestly”, or “the truth is..”. It’s almost as if lying is the norm and we need to qualify our statements by first saying that we aren’t lying- this time. A couple of my favorites are; “to be PERFECTLY honest…” or “to be frank… “

The lies I’m talking about are the ones we use in common exchanges all the time. To be perfectly honest, they can be useful. Little white lies can aid us in the practice of politeness and are often useful in avoiding all-out conflict. Can you imagine what life would be like if all of us were “perfectly honest” all the time? There would be a fist fight on every corner. The trick is to know which lies are important. The important lies are the lies that can change our lives, or lies have significance in our world.  

Throughout time there have been some enormous lies that have cost millions of lives. The most notable is the “big lie” Adolf Hitler told about the Jews. He and his propaganda machine became so proficient at the ‘big lie” that it is codified it into the name we use for all such grand misstatements of fact. The Big Lie teaches us to tell a big lie- tell it over and over- and eventually people will believe it. Hitler’s big lie threw his country and the rest of the world into mankind’s most terrible war and cost the lives of over 50 million, including 6 million European Jews. It seems almost every maniacal despot counts on the power of lies to wield control, or subvert the masses and keep control. Lying is a more potent weapon than any other. 

Politics and lying seem to go together like peanut butter and jelly. In the arena of politics we’ve also developed a commonly used set of phrases to deal with lies, just like the ones most of us use in everyday life. The trouble is that political lies are important lies. They matter, or they will matter to us. Politics has real significance in our world and in our individual lives. So, when we hear phrases like, “walking it back”, or “doing damage control”, or “the campaign has clarified”, we know that a lie is in the air. Either the original statement the politician made is a lie, or the correction is a lie. They are usually so diametrically opposed that both statements can’t be true, or these political types think we’re just too stupid to know the difference. Take the situation where the politician doesn’t realize there is an “open mike” or they don’t think they are being recorded. Is that the time when they’re being honest, or is it the times they are walking it back and correcting themselves? Which one was the real truth? Political lies tend to have two specific purposes. One purpose is to persuade. Usually the lie is meant to persuade the voter to vote a certain way. Persuasive arguments can be truthful, but rarely do politicians stick to the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth. The persuasive lie might include some truth, but not all of it. Gee, is that a lie? (How do we would explain truth to our kids- is partial truth a lie? - We wouldn't let our get away with that.) The other purpose of the political lie is to outright deceive the electorate. When a politician says one thing one day, and the opposite (or very different) thing the next day, that person is out to con us- they are out to conceal their true self from us. They must realize their true self might not sell.

Every time I see a politician with wild swings in position I know that one of those positions must be a lie. Sometimes you can’t tell which position is the real one, so the only conclusion to draw is: (s) he’s a liar (that horrible thing to be called). Being a liar implies all sorts of bad things. The liar is unreliable. The liar is crooked. The liar cannot be trusted. Even though politicians lie all the time, to call them a liar would be insulting. Yet lying in politics is so common that it truly is the norm. There was a great joke told in the dialogue of one episode of The West Wing. President Bartlett was talking to a group of people about honesty in political debate. He described how a candidate made some outrageous statement, when his opponent rose up and said “you’re lying!”. The candidate then camly said, “I know, but hear me out”.

What are we to do? We are fed a steady diet of lies, half- truths, deceptions, innuendos, spin, statistics, and just plain BS. Believe me there are some nuts out there slinging some crazy stuff. We all remember the recent comments about “legitimate rape”. The aftermath of that one was a Super Bowl of lying. Just the other day a Republican state Legislator proposed the death penalty for unruly children; because he thought the reference in Deuteronomy (the Bible) had some real modern-day value; while another Republican state legislator is defending slavery.  If these guys are telling the truth about what they believe, we’ve got some serious thinking to do. We have important decisions to make and the data we have available to us isn’t very good. Our media just perpetuates the lies by never challenging the politicians to be honest. So many times I’ve watched a television interview where some outlandish thing is said, and the interviewer just nods and goes on to the next question. They have to know it doesn’t add up logically-mathematically-or any other way, but they just move on. They do a disservice to the truth.

Besides an inadequate media, we as a country have gotten into the habit of living by our beliefs, instead of our knowledge. We’ve allowed ourselves to adopt a certain way of thinking and closed ourselves off to new information, or sometimes from ANY information. We become entrenched in political or religious dogma and we stay stuck there. The primary danger in these dogmatic beliefs is that they make us very vulnerable to lies. All the politician has to do is appeal to that dogma, and we’ll believe anything. We tend to believe- not because we know it’s the truth. We believe-because the lie fits our mind-set.

In these times when important decisions are being made each one of us has to guard against the barrage of lies that blanket our existence. We need to know which are the important issues and actively pursue truth. The antidote to political lies is knowledge. Knowledge in this environment comes from using our faculties for critical thinking, added to gaining the most information we can from as many diverse sources as we can. Each one of us has an obligation to be stewards of the truth, guardians of the truth, and seekers of the truth.  We can’t afford to let the 30 second commercials inform us, persuade us, or lie us into a bad decision. Being a more critical thinker will make us all be better off- honest!

Thanks for looking in.

P.S. Candidates, quit being idiots and just presume everything you say is being recorded- because it is! Maybe that will help you be more honest.

The Wind and the Lion

One of my favorite old movies is The Wind and The Lion. It was made in 1975 and stars Sean Connery, Candice Bergen and Brian Keith. The plot goes; that in 1904 an Arab Chieftain in Morocco named Mulai Ahmed al Raisuli (Connery) kidnaps an American woman named Eden Pedecaris (Bergen) and her two children to protest foreign involvement and interference in his country. The story then follows the response by President Teddy Roosevelt (Keith) and his actions to get her back from the Raisuli. The story is roughly based on the true story of an American businessman and his nephew who were kidnapped for the same reason and eventually returned unharmed. I’m sure for the sake of drama and a hint of romance the filmmakers changed the plot to make the Americans a woman with her children.

It is a very entertaining movie. It has swashbuckling action, dashing figures, great horsemanship, cleaver dialogue, and more than a touch of true-to-life history. Connery’s portrayal of the Raisuli is great, and Brian Keith’s Teddy Roosevelt is amazing. The context for Teddy Roosevelt is that he is running for re-election after gaining the Presidency when McKinley was assassinated. The blustery Roosevelt campaigns on confronting the roguish Raisuli (“the big stick” foreign policy), but privately admires his audacity. In contrast the Raisuli is a devout Muslim leader who wages a guerrilla war that is meant to unite his tribal brothers through symbolism more than actual damages. The Raisuli is both a spiritual and political leader.  In truth, the Raisuli has no intention of harming his captives, and plans all the while to return them, once his point has been made. His point, of course, is that European and American corporations and military interests need to stop trying to exploit the Arab world for its resources and strategic importance. And to make his point, Roosevelt uses the Big Stick by sending in Marines for a rescue. All along, the Raisuli knows he cannot win a conflict with the great emerging western powers, but he needs to be true to his people and their heritage. For how the rest of the story turns out, you’ll just have to watch the movie. But, I wonder if my description of the movie plot sounds a little familiar.

We are now engaged in the longest war in American history. Our troops have been in Afghanistan for eleven years, while also having engaged in years of war in Iraq. This war is “scheduled” to last another two and half years. Last week the war in Afghanistan claimed the 2000th American life. By nineteenth and twentieth century standards, 2000 fatalities is relatively low number (remember 23,000 died at Antietam in one day during our Civil War). But each life given in war deserves our thoughts and reflections in this age, or any other.  

In the movie, the U.S. was trying to establish strongholds around the world in the new 20^th Century- which is true to history. Many of the European countries were doing the same thing-which was a prelude to World War I. Some methods concentrated on winning over local Bashaws and Chieftains with weapons, money and political alliances meant to protect despots in power in order to gain a foothold.  Other tactics were less graceful and were focused on brute force to coerce alliances. Some partnerships were formed at the end of a gun barrel. In the movie, tribal leaders like the Raisuli simply believed that their land and their ways, both political and religious, should never be subject to foreign influence or occupation. In the movie, the Raisuli knew that he was committing a criminal act by kidnapping Mrs. Pedecaris. But he also knew that this was his only weapon against the superior technology and might of the western powers. When the Raisuli is questioned about his morals by Mrs. Pedecaris he bristles, saying these matters are the will of Allah, and he is but an instrument of Allah’s will. Again, I wonder if this sounds at all similar to current events.

I hardly know the best policy for the U.S. to pursue in the Middle-East, and in the Arab or Muslim world. But I’ve tried to study the matter and there are a couple of notions that have occurred to me. I readily admit they are arguable, but I present them as different thoughts than the ones we normally hear, even from our two Presidential candidates. 

The first thought is that the events of the last decade or so are did not develop recently. Western intervention and influence seeking has been occurring in that part of the world for over a hundred years. It started because of the strategic significance of Arab lands in modern world-wide transport. The middle-east is literally the crossroad between the far-east and the west. Then as we began to use oil in the early 20^th Century the resources of these lands became highly coveted. Western countries have, for a century now, been using any means possible in an attempt to control that part of the world for political and financial gain. In American Middle-Eastern policy we have alternately thrown our support behind popular uprisings or dictators, depending on who could give us the best deal.  Presidents from both parties, and Congressional leaders have all done it because oil has become our life’s blood. They alternately screamed their heads off, or sat quietly in the face of human rights violations depending upon who we were supporting at the time. Again, both parties are guilty of this behavior. FDR once famously said, when confronted with information about some foreign dictator we supported, “..Sure he’s a son-of-a-bitch, but at least he’s OUR son-of-a bitch”. For us to believe that all things about the Middle-East or Muslim relations in the region began on or just before 9-11-01, or are all attributable to al Qaeda, is to ignore at least a hundred years of history. That long history played a huge role in the Persian state of Iran, when the Shaw was overthrown; the Clerics took control of the country, and held American hostages in1979 & 1980. Like the Raisuli, they knew it was a criminal act, but (right or wrong) they felt justified. 

The second thought is that our current policies will likely never work well in the Middle-East or any part of the Muslim world, because we don’t understand their culture. I’m not arguing in support of their culture. I’m simply arguing that in order to be effective in either diplomacy or warfare it is critical to understand them. Our notion of time is very different. Middle-Eastern culture is an old culture. For us, a war lasting eleven years is a long war. For them, eleven years is nothing. The argument that we shouldn’t broadcast our timetable on matters of war is non-sense, because their culture has endured centuries of occupation in the past and they always remain in the end.  It simply doesn’t matter to them.  We have never really tried to understand the role of religion in the Muslim world. Our tradition is to separate church and state. Their tradition is the opposite. Because they meld religion with governing, the Muslim world never sees itself as being in the wrong. This, of course, is the primary danger of bringing religion and government too close together-no matter what the religion. As the Raisuli said in the movie, “it is the will of Allah”. Religious faith justifies a great many things, just as it has for all religions throughout history. (consider: European behavior in the middle ages when  horrible atrocities, mass killings, torture and warfare were committed by Kings in the name of the Christian Church) I think we have become so accustomed to thinking our ways are so superior (and in many ways I believe our ways are better) that we have lost the capacity to see the world from another point of view. For example, it is unfathomable for us to watch the “Arab Spring” and see freed people elect a new totalitarian leader. We ask ourselves: why don’t they just create a government like ours? What’s wrong with these people? Why do they take our money and help, then not act like us? The answer is actually fairly simple- they are not us.  We cite our own culture and values constantly, but we have a bad habit rarely respecting the culture and values of others. Their culture is just as ingrained in them as our culture is ingrained in us- more so, because they have practiced their ways many centuries longer than we have. We can militarily conquer any country in the world, with our vastly superior power. But we will never reform a country until we understand its people, and they themselves come to accept reform. Then we must have the wisdom to accept the reform they choose.

We will soon have a Presidential debate about foreign policy. I doubt we will hear anything of substance in that debate besides the usual blaming over petty matters and platitudes about democracy. Neither Romney nor Obama will change the course of our policy in the Middle-East because it can’t be changed in these circumstances. Our policy there is based on the same thing it has been based on for a hundred years: oil. The politics of oil will always put us at odds with the people of that area and we will never win their hearts. We can talk of spreading democracy all we want, but we only pursue that end when our interests hang in the balance. The existence of Israel has complicated this basic equation - but it has not altered the longstanding nature of our relationship with the Arab/Muslim world.

We need to re-think our relationship with this part of the world. We need to be honest about what we do there- and why we do it. Until we change our ways on the use of resources (oil) from the Middle-East we will always be stuck in un-winnable, drawn out wars in countries that are supposed to be our friends.

When I re-watched The Wind and the Lion recently I was struck that the plot and the dynamics are so similar to the issues we and the Arab/Muslim world are facing today. Remember, that story takes place in 1904. After more than a hundred years of misunderstanding and conflict perhaps it’s time for a new approach to that part of the world-and a new approach to the kind of energy we use. Terrorist attacks here and around the world, plus three wars in twelve years tell us this isn’t working. 

Thanks for looking in.