What We Lost on 9-11

    We are approaching the sixth anniversary of 9-11. This might be a good time to stop using those numbers as a way to score political points, and to reflect on what we’ve lost. Not just the tragic loss of life, or loss of America’s historic innocence, but the twin losses of opportunity and accountability.

   In the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center, we had a brief experience of what could have been an enormously positive aftermath. A genuine wave of fellowship at home—a reaffirmation of the unum in e pluribus unum—was met with an outpouring of support from abroad. We might have built  an enduring monument to those we lost by reinforcing those twin sentiments: by repairing our tattered national unity at home and engaging in an era of co-operative enterprise abroad.

    The fact that we did neither is an indictment of our tragically flawed and inadequate national leadership, of course, but it is also a sign of troubling systemic failure, without which politicians would have been unable to use the events of 9-11 in the service of partisanship, ideology and power. 

    Let’s face it: for far too long, Americans have viewed the concept of civic virtue as “quaint” (to borrow a phrase from our less-than-estimable Attorney General). We have left governing to the few public-spirited individuals willing to undergo the intrusiveness, pettiness and rancor that passes for the electoral process these days. One result has been that along with the public-spirited we have attracted the venal and power-hungry to what used to be called, without irony, public service.

    And when we get the government we deserve, the government we have failed to monitor or control, the government that is increasingly unaccountable, we are shocked! Shocked!

    Do we have a state legislature that has refused to act on consolodation and streamlining of local government, refused to manage our unwieldy and unequal tax system? Let’s spend our energies arguing about daylight savings time.

    Do we have a national government that is bankrupting our grandchildren, isolating us globally, fixated on undermining our constitutional checks and balances? Let’s gossip about the latest sex scandal.

    At the end of the day, we can’t escape responsibility by blaming the Republicans, the Democrats, or the media. Harry Truman to the contrary, the buck stops with us.

    We can’t recapture the window of opportunity that opened in the wake of 9-11. That window is closed. But we can reclaim the concept of civic virtue that is essential to protecting the rule of law—the powerful idea that legitimate democratic governments are responsive to their citizens, but citizens are responsible for creating responsive governments.

    If we don’t rise up to demand a return of accountability—if we just sit on the couch and watch the latest iteration of “American Idol” or the further adventures of Paris the Inane—we will have lost a whole lot more than the twin towers and the people who worked there.

    We will have lost America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Open Letter to X

 

 

 

 

AVA post

August 11, 2007

 

 

An Open Letter to “X”                                       

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

Open Letter to “X”

 

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

Whose America? Whose Values?

What with the charges and counter-charges about the war in Iraq, the use—actually, abuse—of Executive Privilege, and locally, the uproar over property taxes, this little tidbit hasn’t gotten much ink. But it is a telling indicator of the wildly different definition of the term “American values” held by today’s citizens.

 

Sessions of Congress begin with a prayer. (A religious exercise that is itself a dubious one in a nation committed to freedom of religion and conscience). The prayer is often offered by guest clergy invited for that purpose, and a couple of weeks ago, that guest was a Hindu cleric.

 

You know what’s coming, don’t you?

 

The “usual suspects” screamed bloody murder; Family Research Council President Tony Perkins opined that “In God We Trust” refers only to the God worshipped by Christians and Jews (as a Jew, I can attest to the fact that our inclusion in this formulation was long in coming and is even now quite begrudging). Worse, three members of the rabid anti-abortion group Operation Rescue stood up in the congressional gallery and interrupted the invocation by bellowing out “Jesus is America’s true and only God” and similar sentiments.

 

When the hecklers were ejected, Religious Right leaders immediately played the “victim” card, insisting that this was yet another example of government’s “anti-Christian” bias.

(Why do I doubt they’d have complained about bias if the cleric had been Christian and those who were disrupting the prayer Hindu—but consistency has rarely been the defining characteristic, let alone the purpose, of these rants.)

 

I probably paid more attention to this episode than many people, because my most recent book, God and Country: America in Red and Blue, was an exploration of the larger phenomenon of which this is evidence: the fact that Americans occupy different realities.

 

When I think of America’s foundational values, I think of individual liberty, tolerance—even celebration—of all kinds of diversity, equal treatment under the law. When people like Tony Perkins or James Dobson think of American values, they think of Christianity, and not even all Christianity. Just their version.

 

These wildly different realities begin with wildly different definitions of liberty. To AVA members and others like us, liberty is the right to decide for ourselves what we believe and how we should live. To Christian Right true believers, liberty means “freedom to do the right thing,” as they define “the right thing.”

 

In my book, I wrestled with the central challenge posed to our Republic by the existence of these dueling worldviews: how do we talk to each other? How do we come together to engage in the grand experiment of self-government?

 

I make some suggestions, but the jury is out.

 

Why Law Matters

Okay, so I sound like a broken record. Or like the lawyer I used to be. But dammit, the rule of law matters. And it matters—or should—even more to those of us who are not part of “the majority” at any given time.

 

Maybe it is because I grew up Jewish in a small town in Indiana, where many of my classmates still genuinely believed that Jews had tails. Maybe it’s because I went to college in the South during the sixties, when we were arguing about whether black folks should get to vote or be allowed into the local movie theater. Maybe it’s because I have a gay son, and lots of gay friends and relatives. If these experiences have taught me anything, it is the critical importance of impartial, enforcable rules that apply to all citizens, whether their neighbors like them or not.

 

To put it another way, your fundamental rights shouldn’t depend upon the outcome of the next election.

 

The problem is, the rule of law—the principle that citizens should be equal before the law, and the corollary belief that no one is above the law—has been under unremitting assault by this administration, and recent events have served to underscore the degree to which our fundamental institutions have been deliberately sabotaged. Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence occasioned the most outrage, but travesty that it was, it isn’t the sort of  thing I’m talking about. Election of a President with a fully-developed ethical sense (okay, any ethical sense) will stop that sort of abuse.

 

What worries me far more are the sorts of revelations that came out recently in the Washington Post’s devastating four-part series on Dick Cheney. Sure, he’s looney—but unlike our President, he’s also smart, and he has managed to inflict real and lasting damage to our governing institutions. The problem is, that damage isn’t visible to Joe Sixpack or the various talking heads that pontificate on what passes for news these days. It’s more insidious.

 

Equally insidious, and even more worrisome—especially to gay Americans and other disfavored minorities—is the damage being inflicted by a generation of judicial appointees chosen for their far-right ideology rather than their legal competence.

 

Recently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit challenging the President’s domestic spying program. The court didn’t uphold the NSA spying—it really couldn’t have. Instead, it ducked the question by ruling that the plaintiffs had no “standing,” no right to sue. That’s a refrain we are going to hear more and more frequently; the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Administration’s “Faith-based Initiative” last month on the same basis.

 

To define standing in terms more relevant to the gay community, what if the Massachusetts courts had ruled that only people who were already married had “standing” to challenge Massachusett’s marriage laws?  

 

This sort of decision is so dangerous precisely because non-lawyers are likely to shrug it off as some legal technicality. Few citizens understand that what these courts are doing is leaving laws on the books, but rendering them essentially meaningless. You don’t really have a right if no one can enforce it.

 

In the domestic spying case, the court said if the plaintiffs couldn’t prove that they were personally being spied on, they couldn’t sue—they couldn’t challenge the program. But of course, the program is secret, and without the ability to challenge it and subpoena relevant information, there is no way they can ever prove that they are among those being targeted. It’s a perfect catch-22. Before this case, being in the same category as the people being watched would have been enough; indeed, it was enough for the lower court, which had ruled that the program was illegal.

 

As I write this, the “Backward Bush” countdown clock I’ve installed on my computer says this administration has 562 days left in office. It can still do plenty of damage, of course, but it is the judges this President has installed—with the shameful “advice and consent” of a compliant Senate—who can really turn America’s clock back. And they will be on the bench for a generation.

 

Canada looks better all the time.

 

 

 

 

Comments