Reflections on Christmas: Part I

To say Merry Christmas, or not to say Merry Christmas? Many of the “politically correct” have opted for the latter, given our country’s religious diversity. Of course, political correctness, per se, is neither good nor bad. It has its positive expressions, which I think are better described as simply being socially considerate. For instance, why utter a term that one knows is offensive to a certain group of people (particularly when there are inoffensive alternatives)? Yet there are manifestations of political correctness that are downright unreasonable, and the modern tendency to question the propriety of wishing someone a Merry Christmas is a case in point.

My sense is that the Christian and the non-Christian have mutual obligations towards one another. Speaking personally as a Christian, I think its best to avoid wishing a merry Christmas to those who, I believe, aren’t Christian. Yet I think it’s appropriate to practice a form of “innocuous discrimination” by wishing a merry Christmas to those who apparently belong to a predominantly Christian ethnic group, or who otherwise make clear their Christian affiliation (e.g., by wearing a Cross). As for the non-Christian, if his ethnic identity is mistaken, or else is exceptionally non-Christian, he should not be offended since this is, after all, a predominantly Christian country. It is thus unreasonable to expect Christians to refrain from making such public expressions of their faith. Similarly, if I were living in a predominantly Jewish community, I should not take offense if one wished me a happy Hanukkah (especially given the fact that I, as one of Iranian descent, could easily be mistaken for a Jew).

Support Our Troops...Until They Come Home?

Published in the Summer 2009 issue of New Politics.

Hardline conservatives have traditionally sought to vest monopoly control over patriotism in the Republican Party. In contrast, they frequently castigate Democrats and liberals in general as traitors. As Ann Coulter claims, liberals have a “preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason.”

These hardliners have employed a number of tactics in their effort to monopolize patriotism. One of the more recent of these is the use of the popular “Support our troops” slogan, in which they have attempted to convince Americans that opposing the war is somehow equivalent to opposing our troops. Noam Chomsky attests to the propagandistic value of such catchphrases:

“The point of public relation slogans like ‘Support our troops’ is that they don’t mean anything. They mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa…The issue [is], Do you support our policy? But you don’t want people to think about that issue. That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for” (Media Control, 2nd ed., p. 26).

Are liberals really anti-American? Do they truly wish our troops harm? One can derive an answer to this question through a careful examination of the 2008 Congressional Report Card, published by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) Action Fund. The Report Card assesses the extent to which members of Congress have endorsed pro-veteran legislation relating to an “entire range of issues…including veterans' health care, the new GI Bill, mental health, and support for homeless veterans.”

To be clear, IAVA is a non-partisan group. To the best of my knowledge, the 2008 Report Card does not list party affiliations of legislators next to their scores. Anticipating the accusation of partisanship, IAVA points out that “the methodology behind the report card is completely transparent – those who voted with veterans scored well, those who did not support our veterans did not.” They note, further, that “both parties did very well” overall.

That said, there is a strong correlation of over 70% between party affiliation and one’s total score in both houses (the figures below display average scores for Democrats and Republicans). Specifically, Democrats are associated with higher support for pro-veteran legislation. This relationship is statistically significant at below the .01 level, which in laymen’s terms means that there is less than a 1% chance that this relationship is simply coincidental (please feel free to contact me if you'd like to obtain my data).

Maybe it is worthwhile to inquire on the grades our presidential candidates received. Perhaps to the surprise of those who support John McCain (himself a veteran), the senator got a D, whereas Barack Obama got a B (which is also quite low, at least in comparison to the many who got perfect As).

In short, it appears that many are eager to send our men and women in uniform to war and yet turn their backs on them once they return. This invites the impression that our troops are regarded less as freedom defenders, and more as impersonal, expendable resources like money. That’s hardly patriotic.

Orthodox Christian Musings

For those interested in reflections on Orthodox theology, check out my friend's blog, Orthodox Christian Musings. The blogmaster (is that even a word?) is training to be a deacon and is an excellent catechism instructor. He also dabbles in politics (how could he not in these circumstances?!).

ACORN Strikes Back!

I've provided a link to a page from ACORN's website, which presents a concise but thorough defense against some of the more recent anti-ACORN propaganda. A few brief comments of my own...

Registration fraud is NOT the same thing as voter fraud. Many ACORN critics would like you to equate the two. They want you to conclude that election fraud is afoot (and for good measure, they attribute blame to the Obama campaign). Yet as ACORN notes, "there has never been a single reported instance in which bogus registration forms have led to anyone voting improperly." The real victim is not the voter, but ACORN - a small minority of whose employees have submitted false registration forms in order to make an extra buck.

The more radical elements of the anti-ACORN campaign hope that you're so ill-informed about ACORN that they are able to exploit your ignorance by discrediting a movement which has succeeded in broadening our country's electorate. Their ultimate objective, ACORN explains, is to

"...distract ACORN from helping people vote and to justify massive voter suppression. That’s the real voter fraud; the noise about a small fraction of the forms ACORN has turned in is meant to get the press and public take their eyes off the real threat, while those hurling the charges are stealing people’s right to vote in broad daylight. They have already tried to prevent Ohio from registering voters at its early voting sites. In Michigan, they planned to use foreclosure notices to challenge thousands of voters. In Indiana, Republican officials have gone to court to try to block early voting in Lake County, Indiana And if this year is like past years, they are preparing to use this so-called voter fraud to justify massive challenges to voters in minority precincts on Election Day."

Voting Along Party Lines: A Sound Basis on Which to Criticize Obama?

The McCain campaign is casting doubt on how fit Sen. Obama is for the presidency in part because of his highly partisan legislative record. That is, Obama votes with the Democrats “too frequently” (put another way, he is not Republican enough). But is it reasonable to judge a political candidate by the extent to which s/he votes along party lines?

To answer this question, we must first understand that political parties represent different political ideologies (at least in public discourse). A political ideology can be defined as “a set of beliefs and values often forming the basis of an economic or political theory or system” [emphasis added]. This provides the clue to understanding why bipartisanship, per se, is neither good nor bad. Rather, its normative status is contextually dependent. For although there are clearly situations in which the willingness to compromise (or to “reach across the aisle”) is a virtue, there are others in which cooperation requires compromising one’s values (on which ideologies are built). In the latter scenario, “bipartisanship” is a euphemism for the act of betraying the trust of voters whose values you claim to share and promise to defend while in office - and that most certainly is not a virtue.

So, it is not enough for the McCain campaign to criticize Obama on the basis of his partisanship. It has to explain why the particular kind of partisanship practiced by Obama is “bad”.

Roman Catholicism and Health Care as a Moral Issue

Recently, as I was driving to work, a man shot me a dirty look while speeding past me. Presumably, this was in response to my bumper sticker that reads, “Health care is a moral issue.” I’ve learned to expect such disapproving glares from time to time. On one occasion, a driver mouthed the words, “You’re wrong” as he angrily drove past me. I thought to myself, “Now what did that do for him? Did he expect that his thought-provoking two words would prompt a 180 degree shift in my thinking?” Of course, being the child that I am, I then said to myself, “Oh no you di’int!” and pressed the gas. Having caught up with him, I responded with an equally persuasive, “No, I’m right!”

Although I am accustomed to such hostile responses to my “radical leftist” propaganda, what surprised me about this more recent encounter was the fact that the driver’s own bumper sticker suggested that he was Roman Catholic. “But doesn't the Catholic church acknowledge the moral importance of health care?” I asked myself. After a cursory review of Catholic social teaching throughout the past century, I feel like I can confidently answer in the affirmative.

For instance, Pope Pius XI noted the need to protect rights he considered “sacred”, including – alongside others – the right to health. Similarly, Pope John XXIII expressed support for social and economic rights which pertain “…to the necessities of life [and] health care,” to name but two areas. In specific reference to workers, Pope John Paul II believed that “the expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance…be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge."

Now, what exactly is a “moral issue”? I define it as an issue concerning beliefs about how something should or should not be. Regarding health care, it is clear that the pontiffs referenced in this brief review of Catholic social thought acknowledge that people should have access to health care (indeed, health care is explicitly described as the object of a sacred right). Thus, the fact that many millions of Americans are without adequate health care should, from a Catholic perspective, be morally troubling. In other words, no Catholic should be scandalized by my bumper sticker.

I don’t doubt for a second that there are many Catholics in the U.S. who agree with this claim. Yet it appears equally obvious that many don’t. For better or worse, such prominent issues as abortion have led many Catholics to abandon the Democratic Party and join the GOP. I fear that many among them have jettisoned other Catholic teachings in the process. Yet regardless of one’s party affiliation, and however much I commend the Catholic church for its pro-life stance, I hope that all Catholics will come to press politicians to adopt platforms that are consistently Catholic.

Dennis Kucinich - "Wake Up America!"

One of my all-time favorite speeches...

J.S. Mill and American Society in the Post-9/11 Era

Based on an essay I wrote three years ago...

The post-9/11 era has necessitated a serious talk on freedom of expression in the United States. One may question the importance of such a discussion on the ground that this right is formally guaranteed in the First Amendment, which bars Congress from making laws "... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... "

Yet, as British philosopher, John Stuart Mill, had pointed out nearly a century and a half ago in his treatise on individual rights, On Liberty, the government does not constitute the only potential threat to an individual's right to freely express his/her views. More ominous, according to Mill, was societal repression. Indeed, he believed that "... whatever crushes individuality is despotism," regardless of the form of government that one lives under.

In light of the fact that freedom of expression - as well as other rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution - gives meaning to America as a nation, it is incumbent upon Americans to reflect on the extent to which they, as a society, honor this right in practice. I believe there is warrant to argue that if Mill were alive, he would be disheartened by the current situation in the U.S.
Consider, for instance, the barrage of insults hurled at actress, Maggie Gyllenhaal, in response to comments she made last April. As she stated in regards to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, "it is always useful as individuals or nations to ask how we may have knowingly or unknowingly contributed to this conflict."

To be sure, everyone is entitled to disagree with Ms. Gyllenhaal. Yet many have done so in an extremely harsh, non-intellectual manner. She has been dismissed as an "America-basher", a "wench", and an "idiot". One critic, in a comment issued directly at Ms. Gyllenhaal, wrote, "The slime that is under the tree in the swamp is smarter than you." And, of course, she was urged to move to Canada.

Why should we bother listening to Ms. Gyllenhaal, in spite of her provocative views? Mill offers several reasons against an a priori dismissal of an opinion, however controversial it may be.
The first, obvious, reason is that it may in fact be true.

Second, even if the opinion is false, it may, and typically does, contain an element of truth; and since the prevailing opinion rarely, if ever, represents the whole truth, considering opposing opinions is the only chance we have of obtaining the remainder of the truth.

Third, even if the dominant opinion is wholly true, unless it is thoroughly challenged, the grounds upon which it rests will hardly be understood. Finally, the very meaning of the doctrine will be at risk of being lost or weakened, and deprived of its ability to shape people's character and conduct.

If there is in fact at least a portion of truth in what Ms. Gyllenhaal claimed, as Mill would expect there to be, then Americans refusing to take her views into consideration would be depriving themselves of a fuller understanding of the causes behind 9/11. Consequently, moreover, they would contribute less to the prevention of similar tragedies in the future.

The blind nationalism of those - many of whom, I am certain, are otherwise well-intentioned and patriotic - who are unwilling to give such opinions a fair hearing would, in other words, render America less safe in the years to come.

My purpose is not to advance any particular viewpoint regarding the causes behind 9/11 (which is not to say that I do not have one). Nor do I, myself, necessarily adhere wholeheartedly to Mill's ideas.

My objective, rather, is to draw attention to the irony that many in the U.S., primarily for nationalistic reasons, are silencing views they deem unpatriotic, even though an individual's right to speak his/her mind - so passionately defended in Mill's work - forms a fundamental part of America's political identity.