Talking Points

“Never discuss religion or politics…”

It’s a conventional wisdom so ingrained in our psyches, we barely question it at all.  If we did, we might ask who originally coined the idea, and we’d find out no one really knows.  

For how long has it been around?  We’re not quite sure of that either, but we do know it goes at least as far back as 1840, when it appeared in The Letter-Bag of the Great Western: or, Life in a Steamer by Thomas Chandler Haliburton.  Now, if only there were some major historical event that took place in the time around 1840; something by which we can judge the value of such wisdom...

The idea pops up again in 1879 in an essay on “Etiquette Conversation:”

“Do not discuss politics or religion in general company.  You probably will not convert your opponent, and he will not convert you.  To discuss those feelings is to arouse feelings without any good result.”

Let’s be honest, while we may not discuss politics with those we disagree with in order to avoid an immediate discomfort, we are still discussing it with our like-minded partisans and getting just as riled up about the absent opposition, if not more riled without the hindrance of the other side’s opportunity to correct misrepresentations or misperceptions.  And while that may still spare an ugly confrontation in the then-and-there, it doesn’t prevent one for all time.  In fact, it only builds up to a larger eruption down the line.

Leading up to the Civil War, as the two sides were retreating to their corners, President Lincoln was incredibly frustrated by the way his positions were being reported and distorted, or outright fabricated, to the people in the Confederate States.  To prevent further destabilization of an already precarious situation, President Lincoln kept his retorts to his inner circle, but if all sides had not broken down lines of communication and instead had spoken and listened to each other and understood each other, a Civil War may have been avoided.  Lincoln was desperate to do just that and would have compromised greatly to prevent war.  It’s not with certainty he could have managed it, but maybe.  And is that maybe not enough to grasp onto when faced with the darkest of alternatives?  

While you think about that, consider another conventional wisdom, and one we know a little more about: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Politics has never been an easy topic.  Parties have never been especially cooperative with each other in an overarching way, but the divide does appear to be more dangerous today than in most times past.  In the current election cycle, one presidential candidate actually said the opposing party is an enemy by which that candidate is proud to be judged.  

We cannot continue down this path. Before the divide is insurmountable and failure for all is inevitable, we must come together.  Without any bias or malice, or even with a little of both, we must talk and let the fruits of discourse point us to a truth, instead of letting talking points perpetuate long held wisdoms that keep us apart in ignorance and prevent us from working towards real productive solutions where they can be reached.

We must break with etiquette and talk about the issues that matter to us all.  When choosing between civil discourse or Civil War, we must choose the former. We don’t win points when we refuse to work towards solutions. No one won the Civil War, we just stopped losing.

Make It Count

In the not too  distant future, our nation could be celebrating one of Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or Ben Carson Marco Rubio or Mark Kasich or Ted Cruz on President’s Day.  But thanks to a few of these candidates, we could be looking at a very different nation.

As some of the candidates continue to push their campaigns deeper into the hearts of their respective bases, lines are being rewritten, and with it, what it means to be American.  What it means to be conservative or progressive.  And one particular campaign is aiming to redefine another word for our nation: what it means to be socialist.

Bernie Sanders, the self-avowed Democratic Socialist, is proudly touting European countries as his model for America, which includes free college and universal healthcare.  It’s not a surprise that many are cringing at the word “socialism,” as America is a capitalist country and, depending on your perspective, far more successful and powerful than the European countries Senator Sanders wants us to become.  But America is not entirely not socialist as it is.  

We have taxes, and a progressive tax rate at that, to pay for public utilities, schools, parks, arts, entitlements, etc., and while the progressive system may be in the crosshairs of many Republicans, most of the programs that are funded by taxpayer dollars are not.  Not only programs that we all get to appreciate, like the utilities, roads, parks and arts, but also the programs that not all of us benefit from directly, like public schools and entitlements.  It’s not because of the goodness of everyone’s hearts, despite Governor Kasich’s best efforts, but because we do all need them.  If the less fortunate among us are not educated or fed or cared for and are left to suffer, then our country will look more like European countries, but from centuries ago, with lords hiding behind castle walls and battlements.  On a completely pragmatic level, it is in the best interest of everyone to keep any of us from falling to into a desperation which would push one to do something their better nature would otherwise prevent them from doing.  

We are all a part of this and we need to work together to make sure it thrives.  That is what socialism should mean in America.  Not 1% of this and a tenth of 1% of that is against 40% of this.  There’s nothing social about that.  That’s divisive.  It shouldn’t matter how much more one has than the other, as long as we all have enough.  It behooves us all to have a functioning society, and we need to be reminded of that instead of turned on each other to the point where we want others among us to specifically have less.

On the other side, Donald Trump campaigns on deporting millions of Mexicans, banning Muslims and advertises support from white supremacist groups.  That has led some to suggest he’s running a nationalistic campaign.  And when Trump leads in most Republican polls with that brand of campaigning, it nudges other candidates to follow his rhetoric, and that gives the Republican party more than an air of nationalism.  But does that word have to be a negative in America?  

In other countries, where being a nationalist means you look a certain way, you sound a certain way, it’s a defined negative.  But in America, more than any other country, you are what you make of yourself, and you’re an American if you make it so.  An American doesn’t look like anything on the outside (apologies to Native Americans) and that is one thing that makes the melting pot that is America so great, and that’s what nationalism should mean here.  Love of this country, in all its forms, should be what brings us together, not divides us.  Again, we’re all in this together so we can’t be working against each other.  Again, that’s not how a society thrives.

So before we go forwards to this redefined future America of President Sanders or President Trump, let’s look back at a president who helped define the country we live in today.  President Lincoln gave the famous “A house divided” speech in 1858, years before he became President and the Civil War.  The speech was a call to act against slavery because, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.”  But as President, to push back the tide of war, he was willing to compromise… another taboo word in the partisan climate of today.

President Lincoln is known for leading the Union in the Civil War and, effectively, ending slavery in America.  But he tried very hard to make sure arms were not raised against fellow Americans.  To do that, he was willing to allow slavery to continue in the south, so long as it didn’t spread.  He was willing to enforce fugitive slave laws and he was willing to let the Confederates claim their small victories, just so he wouldn’t have to trigger the burgeoning war.  He was willing to compromise the day to win the future.  This wasn’t because he was tolerant of slavery; he didn’t compromise on principle.  The end of slavery was his goal, but more importantly, he didn’t want Civil War.  Why?  Because we’re all in this together.  Lincoln didn’t want brother killing brother, but more importantly, he knew if abolition was forced on the South instead of willingly given, it would not truly take hold and a division would last and it would not be ideal for America or the slaves.  And over a century and a half later, we’re still grappling with that division.

Americans, from every corner of the country, share this land, and as long as we do, we need to work together build a functioning society that works for everyone.  One where we aren’t continuously undermining each other to the point where victory looks like making sure the other side loses, even if nothing positive happens.

Socialism.  Nationalism.  These words only mean what we make them mean.  Let’s stop focusing on labels and start making what we do and who we are mean something.  And for everyone’s sake, let’s make sure it means something positive.  

Iran Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow

On January 20th, 2016, we find ourselves stuck between two ideals.

The first is the ideal set on the same day, twenty-five years ago when President Reagan took office and the Iranian hostage crisis ended moments later.  This was a time when America slammed Iran with sanctions and assisted efforts of war against the country that committed acts of terrorism.  When Americans were united in their love of country, if inspired by a hatred of the enemy.  A time when America demanded respect under the leadership of President Reagan, as opposed to when the Iranians embarrassed President Carter in hostage negotiations.  For many on the right, these Reagan years are the ideal to attain again.

The second is the ideal of the future which President Obama believes in and the one he hopes his Iranian Nuclear Deal helps to bring about.  It’s a future where we no longer have to worry about Iran taking hostages or sponsoring terrorism and, most importantly, building nuclear weapons.  It’s a worthy ideal, but who is it worth the most to?

Consider that the Deal came about because Iran was building their nuclear weapon capabilities.  Does getting caught doing something wrong and then holding the threat over our head something that garners trust?  The continued ballistic missile tests sure doesn’t.  And the assurances coming from Iran that ballistic missile enhancement will continue, especially as long as the Unites States continues to exert influence in the Middle East and support Israel, makes things worse.

On the other hand, the recent hostage situation of our Navy men and woman- or non-hostage situation- may have been a sign of progress.  While the situation was upsetting, it is fair to say that it could have been much worse, and twenty-five years ago it was.  But as we stand today, is the Iran that President Obama is choosing to trust, but verify (a nod to Reagan) closer to the Iran of twenty-five years ago or the idealized Iran of twenty-five years from now?  It’s very possible that Iran will become the country we want it to be.   The youth in Iran is supposedly pro-Western and secular, but we’ve heard that before and things have not changed much.  So what assurances do we have, other than the hope that things will finally change if we’re nice to them?  Or do we have one more card to play?

We gave Iran their money, but there’s something they still want: the ability to do business with the world.  In other words, an opening to the international community, something President Obama believes in, and something President Obama should still use to achieve his ideal.

Iran made one of two choices with the Deal.  The first is they decided that having nuclear weapon capabilities wasn’t as desirable as being part of the international community, or two, they’re lying and will take the billions they can get until they’re caught continuing their nuclear proliferation.  If it’s the latter, then they’re an enemy and every and all options should be on the table.  War has changed; the rules of it should, too.  But if Iran chose the former, and they recognize being part of the international community is their best interest, then the community has the power to set the criteria.

The West can’t make laws in Iran, but they can influence them.  Iran may receive their unfrozen funds, but the community doesn’t have to do business with them.  If Iran wants to reap the communal benefits, it has to do so under the terms of this civilized community.  It has to recognize the rights of women, of members of the gay and lesbian persuasion, of the right of our ally Israel to exist, and it has to stop fomenting strife between the factions within Islam.  This doesn’t just help Iran, it could help bring us closer to peace in the Middle East and it breaks away at the breeding ground for groups like ISIS.  Living in an environment where it’s the law to jail someone for expressing something contrary to the leadership or where it’s honorable to kill someone because they’re gay or were raped breeds the kind of person who believes it’s acceptable to cut someone’s head off or burn them in a cage for disagreeing with them.  And again, if Iran made the decision that being part of this community is more valuable to them than having nuclear weapons and being an enemy, then we still have power in negotiations.  These terms should have been central to the original Iran Nuclear Deal.  That’s the biggest critique of the Deal as it is: it was made in the ideal world of the future, where Iran is the worthy member of the international community.  But they’re not.  Not yet, at least.  But it’s not too late get there.

We’re stuck between two ideals.  One makes us feel safe and strong, and knowing we’ve done it before makes us believe we could attain it again, and that adds some comfort.  The other?  The other could leave us better than we ever were.  It’s noble to aspire to that latter ideal, but aspirations aren’t enough.  If we want to salvage the leverage we had with the Deal, we need to push the issue and we need to push it now before the Iran of today enters the community and empowers the current leadership as they are, which allows them to continue being this Iran long into the future.  And that is not anyone’s ideal.