A sweary—and expertly punctuated—weblog.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Inaugural thoughts

Somehow, Rice is a little more liberal than college campuses that I'm used to, and many classes were rearranged for today's inauguration, which lots of people watched on campus. I joined them, and I'm glad I did. And while I'm surely entering blog-cliche-land by doing this, here are a few scattered thoughts:

I enjoyed the quartet performed just before the oath of office. I rarely think of John Williams as a great composer, even for films (he's tall on simple, brassy bombast and short on subtlety; for my film-scoring money, Thomas Newman is your man), and I'm required as a cellist to remind you that Yo-Yo Ma is overrated (but I like him anyways: he's a superb--but probably not the greatest--classical cellist, and I appreciate his efforts to transcend genres and spread awareness of great music). Other than the fact that the clarinet part seemed to exist only to channel (or rip off) Aaron Copland, it was a great little piece that perfectly matched the tone of the inauguration. It was somber and occasionally dissonant, it had the (again) Copland-esque wide-openness that's uniquely American, and it had moments of genuinely exciting intricacy (right after the clarinet introduces the "Simple Gifts" theme). I was pleasantly surprised, and they did well to class it up after Aretha Franklin's over-divaed "My Country 'Tis of Thee".

I was bothered by commentators' frequent attemps to turn Obama's election into the culmination of the civil rights movement. I doubt that anyone honestly believes that Obama's election marks the eradication of our nation's racial difficulties, and conversely I don't think the goal of the civil rights movement has ever been to elect a black president. I realize that his victory is an important token of how far things have progressed, and I think it's entirely appropriate that the inauguration should occur the day after MLK day, but it's simply inaccurate to speak as though the problem is finally solved.

If you watched the inauguration, you probably noticed that Obama and John Roberts stumbled a bit on the oath of office. I did a little digging, comparing the transcript of what was spoken to the oath as specified in the Constitution. It appears that Roberts made the initial error and prompted Obama incorrectly, tripping Obama up (perhaps he recognized the mistake; he's likely been looking forward to taking the oath for a while) until Roberts corrected the mistake. Interestingly, though, Obama eventually repeated the first (and incorrect) prompt given to him. So if you're starving for another constitutional conspiracy theory to throw at the president, you can complain that he never properly took the oath of office...

And that brings me to my last point:

I'm optimistic about Obama's presidency. I didn't vote for Obama, and he almost certainly will enact policies that I disagree with, but I've spent time sticking up for him among conservatives. Maybe I've been brainwashed by all the Facebook and the YouTube and the Google, but I think the goodwill we've seen towards him is well-founded. I believe he is both intelligent and intellectually honest: despite his far-left record, he's shown moderation, pragmatism, and a cool head since his election, hardly the hallmark of a closed-minded ideologue. I believe that his bipartisanship is more than lofty rhetoric: he has repeatedly sought the advice of his rivals. And I've come around to the idea that these principles--intellectual honesty, restraint, and moderation--are more important than ideological compatibility. The time for shrill cries of "terrorist" and "radical socialist" is over and, in all honesty, never was here. The incoming administration will undoubtedly have its deep flaws, but it's been a long time since we've had the opportunity to let ideological loyalties take a secondary role and unite in optimism for our nation. Maybe we'll end up disappointed by yet another career politician whose campaign message was only rhetoric. But I think that now's a unique opportunity to take a chance, give the benefit of the doubt, and offer hope for the country.

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Dumb enough to think it's important

Whatever my shortcomings, I'm an honest person. Honest to a fault, perhaps. I'm usually undiplomatically blunt, flattery makes me uncomfortable, and I'm awkward when social circumstances prevent me from speaking my mind directly. But, for all its drawbacks, I'm passionate about honesty, particularly intellectual honesty. By that I mean that a person should admit his biases, honestly strive to understand and appreciate opposing arguments, and readily acknowledge that he is often wrong. Intellectual honesty is an honesty with oneself, an aim that should supersede ideological loyalties and personal allegiances. Anything less diminishes our epistemological autonomy, which is (I submit) the fundamental ingredient of being human.

As a result, I hate the assumption--which is nearly ubiquitous in political debate--that your opponent disagrees with you because he is uninformed, deceived, or somehow morally deficient. It's the nasty stuff of partisanship. It drives the meta-partisan venom of Ann Coulter and the shrill pedantry of Keith Olbermann. It leads a person to believe that his party is the party of facts and logic and the lone defender of goodness and decency. It makes us believe that if only our opponents were a little smarter or had our possession of the facts, they would obviously agree with us. It reinforces the idea that political opponents are the enemy, encouraging a person to describe his opponents in cheap caricature: Republicans are portrayed as selfish rednecks while Democrats become lazy entitlement-seekers.

I find such a mindset more harmful than just about any political position. It encourages divisiveness and prevents us from understanding one another. But it also obscures one of the few reliable truths in politics: everything, no matter how well thought out, has its downside. Nearly all political positions involve a compromise of principles.

At its best, socialism (I use the term loosely, both for simplicity and to dilute the stigma unfairly attached to it) encourages compassion, protects the disadvantaged, and discourages materialism. At its worst, it promotes laziness and mediocrity. I think that's precisely why artists, writers, and academics typically lean left. It's not because they're naive or don't live in the 'real world' (whatever the hell that means). It's because--as evidenced by their career choices--they're motivated by something other than material gain.

At its best, capitalism (again, used loosely for similar reasons) promotes self-reliance, industry, and the value of excellence. At its worst, it promotes greed, selfishness, and the exploitation of the weak. That's why businessmen and entrepreneurs tend to lean right. It's not fair to assume that they're too selfish to care about the disadvantaged. Instead, they think financial reward is the best possible incentive to help people realize noble ambitions.

(Of course I'm being a little too nice. I'm aware that there do exist troglodytic conservatives and dole-bludging liberals. But the point is that it's better to assume good faith than to uniformly paint your opponents with a caricatured brush.)

Personally, I tend to lean right, especially on fiscal matters. But I'm not trying advocate a particular ideology, even mine. Instead, the point I want to bring home is that a person can be just as smart, decent, and well-informed as you and still espouse an entirely different political ideology. I do believe in absolute truth. I just don't think we encounter it very often. And almost surely we do not encounter it in the political arena.