Category Archives: Random Blogging

 

Those of you who know my writing mainly through blog postings here and elsewhere might be surprised to know that my twice-a-month column for the Indianapolis Star is much more restrained (or so I like to think). I measure my words in that venue carefully—in large part because I only get 500 of them, and it can be hard to make complex points within that limit. (Try it if you don’t believe me.) I also try to hold down the snark and make my points politely and reasonably, on the assumption that my readers (inexplicable as it seems) will not all agree with me.

 

Nevertheless, I get some email and snail-mail that is critical of my motives, my intellect, my personality and occasionally my parentage. Last Wednesday I got snail-mail that included a recent letter to the editor criticising a column I’d written. (It was a perfectly reasonable criticism, which makes me doubt it was written by my correspondent.) The letter itself—in its entirety, capitalization, etc. in the original—read as follows:

 

“SSK—the only good jews are the messianics who read and understand the O.T. and its prophets. You have alot to learn. Hitler’s holocaust will like like a tea party compared to the coming tribulation where you and yours will be snared. In addition you are a big S.O.B.                 X”

 

I’m quite sure the person who penned this charming message is not a reader of blogs, but just in case, if you’ll bear with me, I’d like to respond with an open letter to “X.”

 

“Dear X,

 

I have received your letter, and having read the Old Testament, I certainly understood your none-too-veiled reference to The End Times. I know that Christians who are biblical literalists believe that when the End Times come, they (and only they) will be “Raptured” while all the sinners (defined solely as those who fail to believe what you do) will burn in perpetual agony in hell. With respect to my prospects for the hereafter, I’m prepared to take my chances, since I’m inclined to think that a God worthy of the name would be favorably disposed to those of us who spend our energies working for a more tolerant and compassionate world, whatever our faults.

 

Religion aside, I’m always bemused by people who cannot respond to ideas with which they disagree by specifying the nature of the disagreement. If I have written something with which you have a dispute, why not explain the basis of that dispute? Did I have my facts wrong? Which ones, and how do you know? I’m certainly capable of making mistakes, but if you cannot explain what they are, correction is unlikely.

 

I’m tired of ad hominem attacks, whether they are attacks on me or anyone else. Responding to a policy argument with the equivalent of “I hate you and your mother wears combat boots” is neither persuasive nor witty.  What do you think you are accomplishing by expressing such vitriol? And what was it that I wrote that so agitated you that you could not frame a meaningful response? Have you considered why my opinion—whatever it was—hit so close to home that you felt compelled to lash out with venom? (And I’m curious—is this sort of behavior consistent with your definition of being a good Christian, worthy of being Raptured?)

 

Finally, why not sign your name? Are you too embarrassed by your own inability to articulate your criticism? Does some small part of you recognize that failure to take ownership of your correspondence implies cowardace and intellectual poverty? Maybe my columns are riddled with errors. Perhaps my policy prescriptions are facile or unworkable. But I sign my name, because I want to play fair. I want serious, thoughtful people to feel free to engage in dialogue with me, to point out holes in my logic or mistakes of fact. That is the only way I’ll learn.

 

Until you are equally willing to own your words, equally willing to defend your beliefs in calm, reasoned discourse, don’t expect me—or anyone else—to take you seriously.                                              Yours truly, Sheila Kennedy”

 

I feel better now.

Comments

What is it with this country’s moral scolds?

 

We see it over and over—Bill Bennett lecturing us on “values” while he’s losing more money than most of us make at Las Vegas’ gambling tables; Ted Haggard thundering against the “sin” of homosexuality while he’s paying a gay hooker; Paul Wolfowitz threatening to withhold World Bank dollars from countries with corrupt officials while he’s using public money to feather the nest of his live-in girlfriend. Our commander-in-chief, who routinely talks in terms of good and evil, had problems showing up for his own, stateside national guard duty, but evidently has no problem sending other people’s children off to fight in Iraq.

 

There would seem to be an epidemic of “do as I say, not as I do” going around.

 

The most recent high-profile victim of this epidemic is Judge Robert Bork. Bork, as many of you will recall, was nominated for a position on the Supreme Court, but failed to win confirmation when his radical opinions and truculent manner raised concerns about his judicial temperment. In the wake of that rebuff, he has gotten even more shrill, thundering against the “moral rot” of popular culture and advocating censorship, presumably to be imposed by people who agree with Robert Bork. He has written articles favoring stricter punishments for wrongdoers, and advocating “tort reform” restrictions on the right of injured parties to recover damages. In a 2002 article, Bork argued for a cap on “frivolous” claims and “excessive” damage awards. He has been particularly passionate in arguing against awards of punitive damages to injured plaintiffs.

 

Whatever the merits of these positions, they evidently are not meant to apply to the good Judge and his cronies. These are measures for the rest of us.

 

Recently, Judge Bork was one of twelve conservative law professors who asked permission to file an amicus or “friend of the court” brief urging clemency for convicted perjurer Scooter Libby. In its order granting the motion, the court dryly indicated that it expected to see these eminent conservatives “reaching out to other, more indigent, criminal defendents soon.” I wouldn’t hold my breath.    

 

Bork showed truly breathtaking chutzpah, however, following a fall as he was mounting the dias to make a speech at New York’s Yale Club. The good Judge has sued the Club for one million dollars plus—you guessed it—punitive damanges.

 

Perjury is a serious crime, as Judge Bork and other conservatives were quick to remind us when Bill Clinton was the perjurer.  If we should deny punitive damages to someone who lost a limb as a result of medical malpractice, why should a missing handrail entitle the Judge to receive them?  

 

As a self-styled constitutional “originalist,” Judge Bork has insisted upon the “neutral principles” of the law. Perhaps someone should remind him that a neutral principle is by definition one that applies to all persons who are similarly situated. To put that in language that even we peons understand, the same rules should apply to everyone.

Comments

The 2008 Presidential campaign is already in full gear. The debates have begun, and it won’t be long before we’re inundated with political commercials.  

 

It’s impossible to predict, at this stage, who the eventual nominees will be. For one thing, what people want in a president tends to be highly idiosyncratic. (My grandmother voted for John F. Kennedy because she loved his hair.)

 

Most of us want someone who agrees with us on the issues, but we also want someone we can trust to exercise good judgment when the unexpected occurs. Most want someone who is a strong leader, although we tend to disagree about what “strength” looks like. Until recently, most Americans wanted a President with “likability,” someone you’d like to have a beer with—but polls suggest that the experiences of the past six years have diminished the appeal of “regular guys” somewhat.

 

That experience has also shaped my own list of what I want in the next President.

   

I want someone who understands the context of Presidential action. Without understanding the foundations of America’s constitutional culture, an administration simply cannot operate effectively—whatever its goals. Lack of familiarity with  geopolitical realities threatens not just American, but global, security. Genuinely understanding the context in which he operates requires a President with an open mind, a curious nature, and high intelligence.

 

I also want someone who has “the vision thing.” As Theodore Hesburgh once said “You can’t blow an uncertain trumpet.” But vision is not stubborness. America needs leaders who know the difference.

 

I want someone with superior communication skills—the ability to bring a divided people together, the ability to inspire hope rather than fear, and the ability to listen as well as talk.

 

Perhaps most of all, I am looking for authenticity. Authenticity is the extent to which people are true to their real selves, the extent to which they refuse to play a role in order to achieve political success. Authenticity doesn’t mean acting without any strategic calculus—sane people respond appropriately to their environments, and to the incentives and disincentives built in to those environments. But for authentic people, there is a line that doesn’t get crossed.

 

Authentic people are emotionally mature, they have the ability to laugh at themselves, they listen to dissenting voices without becoming defensive, and they can distinguish between policy disputes and personal attacks. They learn from their mistakes, and they recognize the limits of their own knowledge. Emotional maturity is not an absence of ego—we’d never get national leadership if that were a condition of candidacy! It is instead the possession of a particular kind of ego, a particular kind of inner security that allows recognition of one’s own limits.

 

I want someone who understands accountability. There’s a world of difference between Truman’s “The buck stops here” and Bush’s “I’m the decider.”  The first says “I accept responsibility.” The second says “I’m the boss.”

 

As Abraham Lincoln said “If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

 

Comments

On January 26^th, Phil Rutledge died.

 

I doubt if many of the people reading this knew Phil, although he was an immensely accomplished public servant and scholar. Phil was a black man born in 1925 in Dawson, Georgia. He later moved to Jacksonville, Florida, which he left to join the Navy after refusing the demand of a white man that he give up his seat on the bus they both were riding.

 

Phil’s life was a string of distinctions: an undergraduate degree in Political Science and Sociology, a Masters of Public Health, and a series of increasingly important positions in government, beginning with posts in Detroit city government, then moving to the Department of Labor during Lyndon Johnson’s administration, and Health, Education and Welfare during the Nixon administration. A list of his civic contributions and honors fills four pages.

 

The  credentials and accomplishments impress, but they leave out the essence of the man Phil Rutledge was: a good, profoundly gentle human being, a man who responded to hate with logic and scholarship. I never heard him raise his voice; I never saw him too busy to help a colleague or a student. He was already an emeritus Professor at SPEA when I joined the faculty, a towering figure in academic organizations, and a tireless worker for better understanding among those of different races, religions and orientations.

 

Phil believed in the power of scholarship to improve government and in the power of government to do good. He wasn’t naive. He knew that government power could be—and often is—misused. He was a great civil libertarian. But he also had faith that good government was obtainable, that good people and good will could solve problems. He believed in social equity and fair play, in a whole that really did transcend the sum of its parts.

 

Most of all, Phil preached the importance of civic engagement by the university and those of us who teach here. He believed in using our skills to serve the community, to make  things better than they are. He believed in the possibility—if not the reality—of a fairer system, a more level playing field, a society where human dignity is respected—and he spent his time trying to make it so.

 

Phil Rutledge was a model of what citizenship should be. His professional accomplishments (particularly given the barriers black men of his generation had to overcome) were impressive, but those accomplishments were “extras.” The lesson he gave us was more elemental—and more attainable. He didn’t return hate with hate; he didn’t let a system that was weighted against him keep him down. He got up every day and was a good human being, a good member of society, and a profoundly engaged citizen.   

 

In our current, poisonous political environment, where public service is discounted and cynicism is too frequently justified, we all need to remember—and emulate as best we can—the good guys who are working for a better world. Like Phil Rutledge.     

 

Comments

In the wake of what he conceeded was “a thumping,” President Bush promised a renewed emphasis on bipartisanship, and a good-faith effort to work across the aisle with the new Democratic majority.

 

Activists on both sides of that aisle remain skeptical. The former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Harold Koh, now Dean of Yale Law School, spoke at a conference held just a few days after the midterm elections. Asked about the odds of bipartisanship during the remainder of Bush’s presidency, he quoted the psychiatrist who was asked to change a light bulb: “First, the light bulb really has to want to change.”    

 

If Bush’s actions in the week following the election are any indication, change is a distant goal. First, the President sent John Bolton’s nomination to be U.N. Ambassador back to the Senate, where he had to know it would be dead on arrival. Bolton—named by Bush in a recess appointment after it became clear that he could not be confirmed even by a Senate dominated by Republicans—is widely considered an unmitigated disaster at a time when effective American diplomacy is an urgent imperative.

 

If the Bolton renomination wasn’t “in your face” enough, the President followed up by renominating a group of hard-Right judges who had previously failed to win confirmation for the federal bench.

 

For sheer chutzpah, however, nothing surpasses Bush’s appointment of Eric Keroack to head up family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. In his new capacity, according to HHS, he will oversee $283 million dollars in annual family-planning grants “designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them, with priority given to low-income persons.”

 

Dr. Keroack previously worked at a Christian “Crisis Pregnancy” clinic that forbid its employees from referring patients to birth control providers. He has been widely quoted as saying that the distribution of contraceptives “demeans women” and “increases out-of-wedlock pregnancy.” He opposes not just abortion, but also birth control and sex education.

 

If individuals believe that birth control is immoral, that is their prerogative. Putting an implacable foe of family planning in charge of the United States government’s family planning programs is another matter entirely.

 

As many abortion opponents have noted, the most effective way to reduce abortion is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Even if abstinence-based sex education programs were effective—and a multitude of studies suggests otherwise—they are manifestly inappropriate for married couples who want to plan their families. Rigid proponents of  abstinence-based procreation doctrines are equally inappropriate choices to run government family planning offices.  

 

The moral and religious beliefs of Americans are incredibly diverse. The genius of our constitutional system is that by keeping government out of arguments about religious doctrine and observance—by confining government to matters that require communal action—we have largely averted the sectarian disputes that have torn other nations apart. We have made bipartisanship and cooperation possible.

 

But first, we have to want to cooperate.   

Comments