A Political Rant (Yes, it's been a while)

[trinityvixen]

So, reading the Times again today was just endlessly depressing. Maybe because it's hump day, or because it's raining and colder than the balmy weather I had been rather enjoying. I could barely muster up righteous indignation over the whole Gonzales thing. I'm sorry, but a man who wants to know what are the strictly legal limits of laws against torture should not have any job in our government, let alone the job of prosecuting those who would stand against it (ie the people being tortured, most likely). Whatever, I can't even begin to care about that. It was outrageous at the time, they're still looking into it, Bush is going to get him appointed come hell or high water because as long as he says Jesus told him to do it, he'll get whatever he wants. Not to mention Gonzales is Hispanic, and it makes him look like he's promoting diversity in his cabinet.

Then there's all this shit with Tom DeLay, and if I couldn't be bothered to be angry over stuff that's been around and ignored forever, why should I care about DeLay any more? He's an out-and-out crook, nothing new for a politician, and he's a bully, nothing new for a republican, if you ask me. He wants to run the House even though he's done more illegal things on his lunch break than half of his 'moral' constituency will do in their entire lives? Fine, whatever. The next four years are going to suck hardcore, and what can I do about it? I'm still just glad we wrangled out $350 million for the tsunami victims instead of like $35 million, which I heard at first.

Speaking of the tsunami victims, Kristof has another good column about American generosity/stinginess that's really elementary yet incredibly no one seems to have, at least in my light browsing, brought up. The fact is that geneorisity isn't something you do because people are watching, it's something you do because you want to help and have money, time, or love to spare for another human being. Getting mad and donating more because other people think you're stingy doesn't make you more generous, it just means you're ashamed you're not generous. Kristof breaks down the donations on a normal year by the US--from every $100 US GDP (or something) we spend about 15 cents aid. Yes, we have a lot of money, so that means, as all the defensive talking heads have been saying, that we donated billions. However, when countries like the Netherlands beat us by donating nearly five-six times as much to the $100 mark, that's just bleeding pathetic for us. Sure, looks good on paper to say we donated billions more than them, but they're donating more per person. If the Netherlands ruled the world like we did, we'd all be sitting pretty on those donations.

In a country that claims to love its Christianity, they're forgetting one of the most influential, moving lessons Jesus ever taught, probably because it has nothing to do with smiting unbelievers, forcing women to have babies, and persecuting gays. For those of you not familiar with the story, Jesus and his disciples watched men and women putting money into the church's collection plate. Many rich men came and gave gold, more gold than men like the disciples had seen in their entire lives, probably, and they tossed it in, so proud of how generous they were. Then a poor woman came and donated two coppers, barely worth anything, but Jesus said she had given most of all the parishoners for she had given of what she had whereas the others had given of what they could spare. The US is definitely the country that gives of what it doesn't need or can do without instead of making the sacrifice to see that others can live. We're also that guy from another parable, shouting our praises to high heaven, saying how good we are for being so righteous. All the while, those who are truly righteous do not need everyone to hear it--they do the good work for no reward other than satisfaction and knowing they have helped, and because they cannot spend what the rich man does, nor have a lackey friend of theirs in the White House to sing their praises, too, they go unnoticed.

I may not be a great Christian (my paraphrasing the Bible should be a pretty big clue on that score), but that just means I know one when I see one. Bush is no great Christian. I'm reading The Poisonwood Bible, about a Baptist minister so bound and determined to save souls in the Congo in 1960 that he cannot see the jungle for the trees. All that is bad is a test from God, not his own ignorance defeating him; all that is good is a reward for his ministry, not the contributions of his neighbors and the sacrifices of his poor wife and daughters. To me, Bush is like that. Every failure, every set back is an 'unforeseen complication,' not a disaster that had always been in the making (hello, Iraq). Every success is proof that God is on his side, not the joint work of people trying to get along, help each other out without dragging the almighty into it. When we send aid to southeast Asia, we send the message that, hey, the US isn't anti-muslim! We're sending money to those filthy heathen countries, aren't we? Aren't we godly? Aren't we good? I like this line I read in my book today to explain away these proud rich men:

"Don't try to make life a mathematics problem with yourself in the center and everything coming out equal. When you are good, bad things can still happen. And if you are bad, you can still be lucky."

Judge us by our works and our constantness, not by what we claim we are. That is as good a rule as Jesus ever meant. Love your neighbor as yourself, the greatest commandment, and one delievered not with the fires and brimstone of the vengeful God or the pomp and circumstance of the proud President.

Comments

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

Man, this is weird. I mean, I'm used to being the idealist. But between you and Michelle....

Look, maybe it's because I'm working for a company who's job it is to determine the efficacy of ad campaigns, but image counts. Abroad, it isn't just Bush's image that's been damaged; it's the whole country's. So if we can get all big and puffed up over doing something good for a change, what's the harm?
Domestically, the Democrats should be the ones getting the word out. They should make sure everyone knows that the administration only wanted to give a tenth what they did.

I agree with you about Bush. He goes overboard with it, but taking credit for accomplishments not your own and passing the buck on any sort of blame is different from blowing your own horn when you ACTUALLY do well. I also agree that America could, and PROBABLY should give more in aid, but I'd also point out that this trend isn't unique to the Bush administration. In the end, it IS a democracy, and people would rather not have European tax levels. For the nation's entire history, we've been afforded the luxury of geographic isolation.

I'm not trying to make excuses for anything. My main point is just that the nation could use a little PR boost right now, so what's the harm?

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

Taking what hslayer said a step further, we are a nation of spoiled brats. Whether it be taxes, the price of food, or anything else, we as a nation are spoiled (not to mention self-righteous) and the world knows it. The aid we throw at most disasters that aren't within our boarders is truly a joke; plus we also have very short memories when it comes to the suffering. I forget which journalist pointed it out, but in many parts of the world as many people die from hunger and preventable disease each month as did in the tsunami. We as a nation though tend to forget about such things occurring once the media stops playing it nightly.

I also agree that the US does need a PR boost right about now, but I don't think the way we handled things is going to make it very positive. Though we will look a little better in the eyes of some, I think the story that will get the most play is how we didn't step up till someone called us on it.

[cbreakr.livejournal.com]

kinda why so many people don't like us, but so many people want to live here.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

I was thinking about this issue a lot while at home because of the UN official who called the US "stingy." Was listening to manifestly centrist/rightist radio talk (oh, KGO, how you've failed me -- all the radicals are on at night) and a lot of the callers took the attitude of "Yeah, well, the US is gonna wind up helping more, and it won't buy us any goodwill, but we'll do it anyway because we do what's right."

And it occurred to me, of course we can't get any goodwill from our gestures. Because they're a smaller proportion of GNP, sure, because we go around beating our breast about how good we are, sure.
But most importantly, it's because you cannot look at our response to a disaster in Indonesia without considering our day-to-day attitude towards and treatment of Indonesia. It's phenomenally hypocritical to set ourselves up on a pedestal as a model of virtue for giving money to a poor country, when our trade policies are a lot of what's keeping them poor. We give them money that we gathered by reaping profits from the Nikes they're producing for six cents an hour, and have the gall to ask for gratitude?

We have to take a long hard look at US trade policy, specifically the cult of free-trade that anyone in our political arena will support (or they wouldn't be allowed to be in politics). We need to look very closely at the way American elites, especially large business interests like clothing manufacturers, interact with and benefit from the kind of impoverished conditions in third-world countries that make them reliant on foreign aid for disaster recovery in the first place. (All those radio callers pointed out that nobody ever helps the US when Florida gets hit with a hurricane -- maybe that's because we actually can afford to pay for it ourselves, because nobody's throttling our economic development and forcing us to race to the bottom in labor prices, hmm?)

But yeah, my point is just that goodwill -- and moral virtue -- isn't based mostly on how you respond when someone is obviously urgently in need. It's mostly based on the role you play in the structure of the system, how you act during that "most of the time" when there is no clear pressing moral imperative or opportunity for reward. A friend isn't someone who gives you money on the street, a friend is someone who's nice to you and respects/thinks about your interests on a daily basis, whether there's monetary gifts or not.

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

You left out certain other aspects of support that industry gets from the American government to crush international competition in their home countries (American industrial espionage overseas, and the degree in which our intelligence community helps in that, have been a major bee in several foreign countries' bonnets for quite some time).

[cbreakr.livejournal.com]

The Kantian Ethic strikes back! Funny how that same ethic seem to be so in line with Christianity but gets evaded when it comes down to the real money.

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

I'm reminded of the pioneer right-wing televangelist Billy James Hargis, who founded one of the first right-wing evangelical universities in the 1950s. One reporter asked him what was taught there, and he said, "Anti-communism, anti-socialism, anti-welfare state, anti-Russia, anti-China, a literal interpretation of the Bible and states' rights!"

That's today's conservative Christianity: A long string of "antis," with some superstition and bigotry thrown in for spice. It's a tendency defined more by what it hates than what it loves. George W. Bush is its patron saint, not for all the good he's done (he hasn't done any good at all) but because he talks about "evil" and therefore hates the right people. No wonder the world thinks we're nuts.

[cbreakr.livejournal.com]

Funny how we're supposed to look down upon the terrorist groups who are defined by their hates (mostly for us). It's always easier to destroy than to create.

[saikogrrl.livejournal.com]

for she had given all of what she had whereas the others had given of what they could spare

I remember this parable, (I remember thinking how profound it was, back in 8th grade in out Anglican school lol)I think it is a great one, and definitely the perfect example here.

those who are truly righteous do not need everyone to hear it--they do the good work for no reward other than satisfaction and knowing they have helped

This is exactly how I feel. Whenever I do something good, like donations or something like that, I try not to tell anyone about it. Because the reason I want to do it is that I want to help someone, not that I want other people to think I am such a good person.
I think there was even a specific parable about that -- that if you are truly doing a good deed, only you need to know about it, or something.....

Despite whether goverments are stingy or not, I still think it is awesome what ordinary people have managed to raise on their own for the Tsunami appeal. :)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Despite whether goverments are stingy or not, I still think it is awesome what ordinary people have managed to raise on their own for the Tsunami appeal. :)

Exactly. I checked the amazon one the other day and divided the total donated by the numbe donating, and it was something like $50-60 US per person, which is very awesome indeed. Governments will always be 'stingy' but where the real difference can be made is among the people themselves. They'll gripe and moan if taxes are raised to be 'flushed away' on foreign aid, but there's a simple way to stop that: donate the money your damned selves!