UP@NIGHT

Chicago lost a big one last week, the 2016 Olympics.  This week, one of its sons won a Nobel Prize.   Chicago has once again proven to be the city of big shoulders.

Some rejoiced last week when Chicago lost its bid, because it was seen as Obama’s failure.  Many of the same folks are criticizing his recent “win.”  The man can’t seem to please some people.

The criticisms, hours after the announcement, are already taking shape:  He didn’t deserve it.  It’s too early in his tenure as president.  It just goes to show that he is more concerned about the world than troubles at home, etc.

Let’s clear up a few misconceptions.  The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded for various reasons.  There isn’t a single criterion.  Some individuals have won for helping to end a war (Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger), for humanitarian work and conflict resolution done over the years (Jimmy Carter), for seeking to improve international relations by supporting an international organization (Woodrow Wilson).  It can also be given to the individual who has done the most in the past year to bring about world peace.  The latter is the reason cited by the chair of the Nobel Committee, and former prime minister of Norway, Thorbjorn Jagland,  for honoring Obama.  The New York Times reports:

“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” Mr. Jagland said. “And who has done more than Barack Obama?”

He compared the selection of Mr. Obama with the award in 1971 to the then West German Chancellor Willy Brandt for his “Ostpolitik” policy of reconciliation with communist eastern Europe.

“Brandt hadn’t achieved much when he got the prize, but a process had started that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall,” Mr. Jagland said. “We have to get the world on the right track again,” he said. Without referring specifically to the Bush era, he continued: “Look at the level of confrontation we had just a few years ago. Now we get a man who is not only willing but probably able to open dialogue and strengthen international institutions.”

But wouldn’t you know it.  Instead of experiencing some pride in the fact that a sitting American president has won the Nobel Peace Prize, which certainly sends a positive message to the world, like the conservatives who rejoiced at Chicago losing the Olympics, Republicans can’t wait to criticize the man for winning a prize he wasn’t even seeking.  Listen to Michael Steel, chairman of the Republican Party.  (From The New York Times , Oct. 9, 2009)

Even before Mr. Obama appeared in the Rose Garden to discuss the award, he was facing criticism from the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele.

“The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights,” Mr. Steele said in a statement. “One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”

This is cheap and mean spirited.  Its concern with scoring domestic political points is on a par with those who thought embarrassing Obama over the Olympics was worth more than the benefits of an Olympics to Chicago and America.

Obama won the prize in part because he is a genuine cosmopolitan, in the best sense of the term.  His politics look to the world stage and America’s place on it, not behind or above it.  But it appears that many Americans simply don’t realize the extent to which his words during the election and his approach to international relations–one which emphasizes the idea of respect–have transformed perceptions of America.  (Perhaps America might really be interested in decreasing violence around the world, in decreasing nuclear weapons, etc.)

Leading America, the most powerful nation on Earth, out of the moral and political myopia of the last eight years is surely worth a Nobel Prize.  In this regard, who has done more for world peace this past year than Barack Obama?

If you want to get some idea of just how lost some of the folks on the right are these days, catch this from Red State:

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Friday, October 2nd at 11:29AM EDT

Hahahahaha.
I thought the world would love us more now that Bush was gone.
I thought if we whored ourselves out to our enemies, great things would happen.
Apparently not.
So Obama’s pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him.
So much for improving America’s standing in the world, Barry O.
Maybe now perhaps we can hope he will mature a bit on the issues of foreign affairs. But I doubt it.
BTW, Dear Barack Obama, you are no Billy Mays.

Let’s leave aside the fact that a major American city lost a bid today for the Olympics, which would have meant jobs and publicity for the Windy City.  Let’s leave aside the disgusting comment about “pimping.”  Let’s concentrate on the line, “So much for improving America’s Standing in the World.”   What does this claim amount to?  If we don’t win every time, then we shouldn’t bother talking to other nations and peoples, or placing ourselves on the world stage (unless we are #1).   This is what one would expect from those who don’t understand that “improving our image” involves a willingness to engage, and engagement doesn’t always mean winning.  It means “losing” at times.   (Should our athletes not participate in the Olympics because they might lose?)  This is how decent peoples and countries behave.   And in the long run, it builds respect and allies, as opposed to vassal sates.

Erickson and many of his fellow (right-wing) conservatives are like the whiny kids in the school yards who take their marbles home when they can’t get their way.  And then decide to stay home because they might lose.  And cheer (from home) when others lose.

Obama took a chance.  He didn’t succeed.  Good for him.   Meanwhile, you guys on the right, keep up your good work mocking the president for trying to bring the Olympics to the U.S.   We know what you really care about:  bringing Obama down, even if we lose because of it.  But I am betting that the American people can tell the difference between self-destructive xenophobia and patriotism.

There is a cottage industry in the making: “Obama the socialist” paraphernalia.  One of the striking features of this industry is the confusion that stands behind it.   As revealed in pictures above, some people don’t know the difference between National Socialism (fascism, Nazis; image one above: Nazi Brown Shirt/Obama) and Communism (sometimes called socialism; image two: Lenin/Obama).  The two groups hated each other and fought bloody wars.   Yet, for some, hey, a socialist is a socialist.  And they want to make you believe that Obama is one, which will help to kill health care reform, for the fifth or sixth time in U.S. history.

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Fool me three, four and five times, hand me the clown suit.

If one were to believe Fox News, the fear of socialism is running rampant in the Land.   Folks who regularly depend on government sponsored hearth care, for example, the Medicare program and the Department of Veterans Affairs, or who will someday depend on them, appear to feel no compunction about attacking the public option in Obama’s health care plan.  For some reason, it is socialism, but Medicare and Social Security are not.   Of course, these are not the only individuals attacking Obama.  There are radical free marketers who in principle just hate the idea of the government getting involved in anything.   They would even kill Social Security.   (I wonder how many of them don’t have health care or are in danger of losing theirs.)  After all, if the government gets involved, it will undermine the private insurance companies, and with this undermining the fall of capitalism and America can’t be far behind.

What is the main argument against a government sponsored alternative:  the government, which can’t seem to do anything right, will undermine well-run insurance companies, because a government sponsored option will be non-profit.  The counterargument: if we don’t have good non-profit competition, the price of insurance will continue to skyrocket and help bankrupt the country.

There is a lot of fear in insurance land.   We seem to have here companies that are afraid to compete with a government run program.  I wonder why.  Fear that their bloated profits might shrink?  Fear that they will be put out of business?

But the magic of the market should be able to find a place for private companies, even with a government sponsored alternative.  Does every vet choose the services of the Veterans Administration over private health care?   Surely not.  If the private insurance companies have good products to market, they will find patients, even with a public option available.  The public option that Obama is recommending is not going to be so attractive that it will drive out of the market well-run and reasonably priced private insurance.  But if the insurance companies don’t provide good service at reasonably prices, it should be their problem, not ours.

To return to socialism.  The funny thing about this debate is that few young people have any idea about the dangers of socialism.  That’s because they have grown up in a world in which there aren’t any dangers from socialism, at least not in the way in which the over 50 set remember.   And those who seem to be most concerned (look at the crowds at some of the town halls),  appear to be those currently benefiting from Social Security and Medicare or those who will be benefiting within a decade or two.  This form of “socialism” is quite fine and dandy.  (Just try to find a Republican member of the Senate who wants to do away with these programs.)

The danger for the young is not socialism; it is a capitalism that is malfunctioning and cannot compete.  One way to hamstring the American system is by perpetuating the endlessly wasteful health care system that we now have.  Many in big industry recognize this.   The question is rather simple for them: how do we compete against countries whose overhead for manufactured goods is markedly less than ours because their health care expenses eat less of the pie?

If we let fears from another era get the best of us now, we will have no one to blame but ourselves and (some special interests) for a declining standard of living in the years to come.

Poor Newt Gingrich–the de facto leader, along with Sarah Palin, of the right wing of the Republican Party–can’t seem to chew gum and walk at the same time.  How do I know this?  Well, he seems to find it impossible to be a loyal citizen of the United States while at the same time recognizing that he is a also member of a wider human community.

Newt appears to be very confused about the idea of world citizenship.   The New York Times reports the following,

Newt Gingrich might not be “a citizen of the world,” as he proudly proclaimed at the G.O.P.’s annual fundraising dinner, going so far as to offer a reverse shout-out to all of the countries he distinctly wouldn’t want to be a citizen of —“North Korea, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba or Russia.”   June 8, 209, “In Palin’s Shadow, Republicans Collect Cash”

The  idea of being a world citizen is an old one, going back at least to the stoics of Ancient Greece and Rome.  Marcus Aurelius, the emperor of Rome, and a defender of the Roman Empire, didn’t appear to have any problem asserting that one could be both a loyal citizen of a country and a citizen of the world.

“My city and country, so far as I am Antoninus, is Rome, but so far as I am a man, it is the world.”  The Meditations, Book Six, 44.

Newt has a reputation for being one of the intellectuals of the Republican right.  I hope that this proves false for the sake of conservatism in American, for it appears that Newt believes that being a citizen of the world requires him to be a citizen of specific countries, for example, North Korea and Zimbabwe, in addition to the United States.  It’s hard to imagine how anyone with a Ph.D., and Newt has one, least of all a historian, could be so confused about an idea that has been central to Western (and world) civilization for at least two thousand years.  The idea is not that one should be willing to trade one’s nationality for another, but that one should seek to look beyond the borders of one’s nation to a common humanity.  (Was this not Christ’s message?)  We are citizens of nations, but as human beings we share a common humanity.

And it appears that Ronald Reagan had little difficulty understanding and asserting this claim.  He opened a speech to the UN on June 17, 1982, with the following words:

“I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world. I come with the heartfelt wishes of my people for peace, bearing honest proposals and looking for genuine progress.”  The American Presidency Project

Gingrich fallaciously paints everything in black and white terms, either it is this or that, and asserts with absolute certainty that it is one or the other, citizen of the U.S. or of the world.  This is just the kind of ideological mind-set that has proved so devastating in Washington and in the country in the last few decades.  It surfaced in the way in which Gingrich railed against Sotomayor and targeted Obama on the issue of empathy.

“Look, the whole concept that President Obama has talked about — that he worries about empathy. We don’t have the rule of empathy. We have the rule of law.” Media Matters

But as Media Matters points out, Gingrich’s claim is misleading, to say the least.  Obama never suggested replacing law with empathy.  He spoke of his desire to appoint a judge who is empathetic and dedicated to the rule of law.

During the June 4 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich forwarded the false conservative talking point that President Obama said he would seek a justice who shows “empathy” rather than a commitment to follow the law. But Obama actually said his nominee will do both. Gingrich claimed, “Look, the whole concept that President Obama has talked about — that he worries about empathy. We don’t have the rule of empathy. We have the rule of law.” In fact, in Obama’s May 1 statement to which conservatives have repeatedly pointed, immediately after saying, “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes,” Obama said he “will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.”

There is a connection between Gingrich’s attack on the idea of world citizenship and his attack on empathy that extends beyond his fallacious bifurcations.  One reason that we can be world citizens is because we are capable of being empathetic toward those who may not be members of our own tribe or nation.   Empathy should be understood in two ways. First, there is the sense in which one is empathetic if one can stand in the other guy’s shoes, that is, see the world from alternative perspectives.  Obama often speaks about this “skill.”  Second, empathy can be understood as synonym for compassion.  The ability to stand in the other guy’s shoes doesn’t necessarily lead to compassion, but it does lead to a better understanding of where he or she is coming from.  Our capacity to empathize in both senses of the term is an important factor in our ability to be world citizens.  Gingrich doesn’t want this capacity to be a feature of our judges and, I suggest, he doesn’t want it to be a feature of the way in which we approach other peoples.  If we approach other peoples with empathy, we enter the dangerous territory of world citizenship, which detracts from being an American.  Empathy tears down “natural” boundaries that Newt would prefer to leave intact, and it will turn us into bleeding heart liberals who care more about other folks than members of our own nation.  What nonsense.  When seen in this light, Gingrich’s comments on world citizenship are not merely provincial.  They are xenophobic.  He is waiving the flag in a way that is dangerously close to nationalisms that plagued the twentieth century and gave us two world wars.

If I am wrong about the connection between Gingrich’s distrust of empathy in the courtroom and his anti-cosmopolitanism, then I believe it is Gingrich who must set the record straight.  His words thus far make this a more than reasonable inference.

There appears to be a growing cottage industry that is addressing whether Obama is merely a pragmatist, in the narrow sense of the term–that is, one who places strategic considerations first–or whether he is philosophical pragmatist. In my view, Obama is indeed a philosophical pragmatist.  If you are interested in understanding what makes Obama tick and how he might maneuver politically, this question is worth your time.  And for your convenience, there is now a site dedicated to discussing the issue of Obama’s pragmatism.  (See “Barack Obama’s Pragmatism.”)

In several blogs on UP@NIGHT and on other sites, I have mentioned that Obama’s mother studied with the granddaughter of John Dewey, perhaps the most famous pragmatist of the twentieth century.  Of course one would not want to make too much of this connection.  On the other hand, it is not meaningless, especially when Alice Dewey addresses Obama’s pragmatism in the context of his idealism.  The passages below are from an article in the Star Bulletin (Hawaii), “Strong Women Lead Obama.”

At his homecoming rally Friday, Barack Obama paid tribute to his late mother, a single mom who sacrificed to ensure he received the best education. His next stop was to visit his 85-year-old grandmother.

These two strong women each were pioneers in their fields and helped shape the presidential candidate’s outlook on life. “Like his mother, Barry is a pragmatic idealist,” said Alice Dewey, an emeritus professor at the University of Hawaii and family friend. “If you have ideals and want to accomplish things, you’ve got to be pragmatic about it.”

…. “Ann’s work was almost entirely in villages,” said Dewey, her friend and thesis adviser. “Barry found his feet in the streets of Chicago. It was urban, but it was the same thing, get out there to talk to people, listen to their needs and try to put together something that will work. Like Ann, he was thinking, how do you help the folks who need it?”

If these statements were coming from someone other than the granddaughter of John Dewey, and from someone who was not academically trained, I would be inclined to equate “pragmatic” with “strategic,” and to view the phrase, “try to put together something that will work,” in the same light.   And surely this is part of their meaning.  But given that Alice Dewey knew that she was being interviewed for a newspaper article and not an academic audience, and that she used the phrase “pragmatic idealist,” which sounds like an oxymoron to most of those unaware of the tradition of philosophical pragmatism, I suspect that this was her way of telegraphing that Obama is not merely a strategic pragmatist.  He is something more.  Perhaps a philosophical pragmatist.  (Yes, she could have meant that he was merely a smart idealist, but the passage discussing what “works” counters this interpretation.)

Ultimately the evidence for Obama’s philosophical pragmatism will have to come from his words and deeds.  For those interested in pursuing this connection, check out the web page on Obama mentioned above and click “links.”

….

P.S.  For those who read Spanish, you may be interested in a piece  that appeared recently in the most important paper in Lima, Peru on Obama, pragmatism, and John Dewey.  “Obama contextualiza decisiones” by Gregory Pappas.

Spoiler Alert. This review talks about details of the plot of the new Star Trek movie.

Part I     Hope Springs Infernal for Old Star Trek Junkies

One may wonder why someone of my age and interests would be writing about Star Trek.  Well, I consider it a part of the collective consciousness of my generation (baby boomers) and the one that followed.  The Star Trek phenomenon is worth reflecting on for what it tells us about where we have been and where we might be going.  Popular culture can sometimes do that.

I won’t go through the litany here of all that this show may have meant for those who followed it.  Let me just say that it embodied an Enlightenment sensibility about the future that had been very much a part of our culture.  The future could be better, not only technologically, but ethically.  For those of us shaken by the Cold War and the Vietnam War, Spock’s rationality certainly appeared preferable to Dr. Strangelove.  And now, of course, there is the Spock/Obama connection, which has been much talked about.  A president who might be rational (and feeling, but in a deep sort of way)?  Very cool.  So, a new Star Trek movie seemed like just the ticket in the spring of 2009.  I really wanted it to work.

Part II   The Reboot

The producers and writers of the new Star Trek knew what they were doing.  They wanted a reboot.  They got it.  They wanted to reach a larger audience.  They have.  People, young people, appear to love it.  They are going to make some big bucks.  Hats off to the big Hollywood corporate establishment.

I am not one of those old fans of Star Trek that feels that any tampering with the “brand” is necessarily a bad thing.  (As a matter of fact, I like what I have seen of the upgrade of the first two seasons of the original Star Trek.  The improvement in special effects is welcome.)  But I do resent the attempt by Abrams, the new movie’s director, to dismiss criticism by claiming that 10% of the old fans won’t be satisfied with anything that he does.  The new Star Trek movie may be a success financially, and it may provide entertainment for some, but it certainly doesn’t measure up to the old series, and not because 10% of the old fans are cranky.  Deflecting criticism in this fashion won’t cut it.

Part  III   The Trailers

I have a list of reasons for why the new movie is problematic.  But first I recommend that you take a look at a trailer for the new Star Trek and compare it to the trailer for The Wrath of Khan, a movie that many have claimed is similar to the new one.  And then as a treat, check out a third trailer.  It was done by a fan, Dustin, several months ago.  (According to his bio, he’s 24, so clearly not a boomer.)  He didn’t like the trailer for the new movie, even before he saw it.  One of the things that makes his edit interesting is that it invokes a sense of wonder, as well as an anticipation of the new, that was part of the old series, and which is totally absent from Abrams’s movie.

It’s too bad Abrams didn’t make Dustin’s movie.

Notice in Abram’s trailer that there is only a short image of the latest villain, Nero, while the older villain, Khan, fills the screen with his voice and personality.   (How novel is this one?  A Romulan named Nero.  Give me a break.   Both Nero and Khan are seeking revenge, but Nero looks like a tattooed motorcycle gang member, who’s fuming about someone stealing his bike.  While Khan is, well, Khan.)

Part IV   The Dozen Reasons  (although there could be many more)

Okay, I promised a dozen reasons for why the new movie doesn’t cut it as a satisfying member of the Star Trek universe.  Not in any particular order:

1. Suspension of disbelief.  There are limits.  This movie requires one to believe that a frustrated Spock,  instead of sending Kirk to the brig, throws him off the ship to land on an ice covered planet, where in all likelihood he would die.  Low and behold, Spock prime, the real Mr. Spock, is on this very planet.   After being chased by a monster, Kirk just happens to run into a cave in which Spock has been hanging out, having been marooned by Nero, the tattooed villain.  Spock then takes Kirk to a Federation outpost, where, low and behold, he meets Scotty.  And how did Kirk get into the Star Fleet?  No exams for this young man.  Just a dad who was a hero and a note about his being a genius.  I won’t go on.  This is not only poor science fiction; it’s poor fiction.  And it doesn’t work as fantasy, because even in the latter genre there are some rules.

2. Cavalier attitude toward violence and genocide.  Okay, there are times that planets have to be destroyed in science fiction, but in this movie, two of them are gone in a New York minute, each with billions of people.  In one case the apparent need for this plot device is to create a madman, Nero, in another, to make Spock emotional.  You don’t go killing off billions of people, even if they are Vulcans and Romulans, in order to account for the psychology of two characters.

3.  Pacing.  The T.V. series was paced in a way that was often hypnotic.  (This is less true of the movies, but there are some exceptions.)  Time slowed down.  One had time to look around and see what this new world looked like.  The new movie assumes that everyone in the audience suffers from ADD.  Look another star ship just blew up.  Look people are falling off ledges. Look at all the lights….

4.  Humorlessness.   The humor in the writing is contrived and characters at times appear to parodying lines from the series.  I simply don’t understand those who have talked about the humor in this movie.  It is weak.  It is saccharine.  And a Star Trek without humor is like space without time.

5.  This movie could have been made with virtually no reference to the Star Trek universe.  It’s bang and shot em up vision of space would have worked just about as well with another cast of characters.

6.  If the villain is not a tattooed member of a motor cycle gang, then he is an escaped patient from a mental ward who is off his medication.  He certainly has nothing of the Romulan in him.   (He doesn’t even look like one.)  Special effects can not compensate for weak villains.  And weak villains undermine the character of the heroes.  (The worst Star Trek films all had weak villains.)

7.  The music is claustrophobic.  Check out how different Dustin’s edit is of the new trailer, in part because he is using music from older movies.

8.  The young Kirk is caricature of the original Kirk.  Again, lack of humor is part of the problem.  The character is one-dimensional.  He might as well be a bad boy who turns star football captain.  (And the bits with the little convertible and then the motorcycle…..This guy is not James Dean, and neither was Shatner.)

9. There wasn’t one original science fiction idea in the entire movie.  Every single “idea” can be found in countless movies.  (Did we really have to see the ship saved by dumping the warp core?  Oh, no, not the warp core again.  And then there was “the ledge.”  Just how many times did the young Kirk find himself hanging off a ledge of some sort?)

10. The movie had nothing to say.  This is fine if your aim is simply to entertain.  But you would think that the reboot of a series that did have some ideas would have tried just one or two.

11.  I prefer Apples to P.C.’s, but really, did the Bridge have to look like it was designed by the Apple folks.  (There were times that I thought I might have seen an Apple logo or two.)  This is a small quibble, but I believe that it reflects a lack of imagination on the part of the film’s creators.

12. This movie was not about boldly going where no one has gone before.  It was about staying close to a formula that has succeeded in recent action films.  It is bread and circus of a particular vintage, post 9/11 escapism.

Good or great movies (or series) leave us with scenes to remember.  What will you remember about this film 10 months from now?  (Young Kirk hanging on to some nondescript ledge?)  Oh, I know.  At least I know for boomers:  Leonard Nimoy’s face as the aged Spock saying to Kirk, you have always been my friend and always will be my friend.  And the only really funny line in the movie, when the older Spock tells the younger Spock that he was messing with Kirk’s head when he claimed that a terrible paradox when ensue if the two Spocks met.  A terrible paradox did not ensue, unfortunately.  That might have been fun.  Just a weak movie.

I rest my case.

In declaring his criteria for a Supreme Court nominee when Justice Souter announced his departure, Obama mentioned empathy and real world experience, in addition to a deep knowledge of the law.  At the time, right wing ideologues started screeching about how the term “empathy” was merely a code word for a liberal activist judge.  The fact that Obama has emphasized the importance of empathy in numerous contexts, not just with regard to the Court, was ignored.  Since empathy must equal “activism,” these ever so sharp right wing talking heads were prepared to shout in unison, “gotcha.”

Sonia Sotomajor may be a left leaning centrist, but she is certainly no left wing radical.  The reasons Obama gave for choosing her fall right in line with his version philosophical pragmatism, which is related to his insistence that empathy is a legitimate criterion for selecting a member of the Supreme Court.  Failure to understand that Obama is a philosophical pragmatist, as opposed to simply a political one, explains much of the confusion about his approach to selecting nominees and advisers.  When Obama talks about the importance of experience, when he talks about consequences (as opposed to abstract principles), when he talks about fallibilism, when he talks about consultation and cooperation, and when he talks about what works, he is using well known catch phrases of this tradition.  And he knows it.  Unfortunately, political commentators, left, right and center, don’t.

Obama’s commitment to philosophical pragmatism was highlighted this week when he invoked the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in announcing his selection of Sotomajor.  Obama and Holmes are on the same wave length in how they understand the role of law in society (and society in law).  And Holmes was deeply indebted to the pragmatist tradition and counted among his closest friends the leading pragmatists of his day.  ( See, “Obama: Conservative, Liberal, or Ruthless Pragmatist?”)  Holmes’s most famous statement about the law is indicative of his pragmatism, and Obama cited it in order to help explain one of the most important decisions of his presidency.

So I don’t take this decision lightly. I’ve made it only after deep reflection and careful deliberation. While there are many qualities that I admire in judges across the spectrum of judicial philosophy, and that I seek in my own nominee, there are few that stand out that I just want to mention.

First and foremost is a rigorous intellect — a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions. Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice; a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

These two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our nation’s highest court. And yet, these qualities alone are insufficient. We need something more. For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court. New York Times, May 26, 2009 (empahasis added)

“How ordinary people live,” this too has been a great concern of pragmatists, which brings us back to empathy.  There is a misunderstanding about the term that stands behind many of the misguided attacks.   It has two major components, and they have been conflated in the MSM.  The first is the ability to, shall we say, stand in the shoes of the other guy.  Obama often speaks about empathy in this way.  George Herbert Mead, an important pragmatist of the early 20th Century, spoke about the importance of taking the perspective or role of the other.  To function as social beings we must be able to see the world through the eyes of others.   (Mead was close friends with John Dewey, perhaps the leading pragmatist of the 20th Century.  Dewey’s granddaughter  was Obama’s mother’s graduate school adviser.)  Usually when we think of standing in the shoes of the other guy, we also think about being compassionate.  This is the second component of the term.  But these two aspects of empathy are not identical.  We sometimes find ourselves standing in the shoes of the other guy and still not feeling very compassionate about his or her actions.  But to understand this person, to make certain kinds of evaluations, which may even be negative (he’s a cold-blooded killer, and that’s what it feels like standing in his shoes), we must be able to take the perspective of this person.  Yes, doing so often leads to compassion, but it doesn’t have to.

I am convinced that Obama is a sophisticated enough thinker to understand these basic features of empathy.  He is not confusing justice and mercy, as several conservative pundits have claimed, when he invokes empathy as a criterion.  He is not eliminating (judicious) judgment in favor of some sort of political correctness.  (He specifically mentioned “impartial justice” in his remarks.)  Obama has a view of the law that respects its internal “logic,” but understands that this so-called logic requires interpretive skills and a historical sensibility.  It is not a transhistorical logic.  In other words, there is no view from the mounatintop when dealing with human creations such as the law.  Justice requires a rich understanding of legal precedent, of legal argument, but also of people and of people’s current circumstances, and for the latter, we must be able to stand in their shoes.  Justice is a balancing act.  It requires judgment, not simply deduction from set principles.  That’s why we call those who interpret the law judges and not deducers.

For Obama, empathy and experience go hand in hand, because experience entails social interaction, and social interaction devoid of empathy is, well, inhuman, in both senses of the term (not human, not humane).  The kind of justice who will best serve us on the Supreme Court is one who understands that the life of the law is not logic but experience, which in turn entails empathy.

Salem Witchcraft Trials (1692)

Question:  What did the terrorist say to terrify Dick Cheney?

Answer: Boo!

If one listens to the words of the former vice president, it is clear that he is telling us that terrorism has worked.  We must now live in perpetual fear, which is, after all, one of the main goals of those who seek to terrorize.  The danger is so great that we can no longer think about “middle ground” positions, say, those that question the need, value, or morality of torture, for “compromises” of any sort will lead to mushroom clouds in our cities.  We can not defend ourselves against terrorism unless we recognize the pervasiveness and unique power of this evil.  Enhanced interrogation techniques, a k a as torture,  may be all that is standing between us and the abyss.

The [Obama] administration seems to pride itself on searching for some
kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. . . . But in the fight
against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep
you half exposed.  You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed
terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear armed
terrorist out of the United States….When just a single clue that
goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on
catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a
good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American
people are in the balance. Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced
interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our
country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that
strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and
the terrorist enemy.    (Vice President Cheney
Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute
Thursday, May 21, 2009)

You know, we have seen this mentality of before in American history.  It calls on us to fight the Dark Side with every means at our disposal.  Two instances come immediately to mind: the Salem Witchcraft Trials and the accusations of Senator Joseph McCarthy about communists in government and industry, the Red Scare.  In both cases the same sort of categorical, fear driven, mind-set possessed otherwise good people.  The fact that there were no witches and that the threat from communism was external, not internal, is irrelevant to the point at hand, namely, that leaders can use fear to drive the public into unacceptable actions.  Cheney has been betting on this.  And it’s not a bad bet since fear helped drive us into an unnecessary war against a country that posed no threat to us.

Here’s an experiment.  With Cheney’s words in mind, read those of Cotton Mather, who sought to defend the persecution of witches  back in 1689.  Across centuries they reveal themselves as kinsmen who own the Truth and challenge the integrity of those who dare to think differently.   As you read Mather’s words, think about Cheney’s claim that we can not jail 245 prisoners from Guantánamo in the U.S. because they are far too dangerous.  While no one has ever escaped from a super maximum security prison in the U.S., we must still fear these men.  Perhaps they possess powers akin to those of witches, and they will be able to fly over the walls of our prisons or cast spells on the guards.  [The idiosyncratic grammar is in Mather's text.]

But I am resolv’d after this [incident with a witch-M.A.], never to use but just one grain of patience with any man that shall go to impose upon me a Denial of Devils, or of Witches. I shall count that man Ignorant who shall suspect, but I shall count him down-right Impudent if he Assert the Non-Existence of things which we have had such palpable. Convictions of. I am sure he cannot be a Civil, (and some will question whether he can be an honest man) that shall go to, deride the Being of things which a whole Countrey has now beheld an house of pious people suffering not a few Vexations by. But if the Sadducee, or the Atheist, have no right Impressions by these Memorable Providences made upon his mind; yet I hope those that know what it is to be sober will not repent any pains that they may have taken in perusing what Records of these Witchcrafts and Possessions, I thus leave unto Posterity.  Memorable Providences, Relating to the Witchcrafts and Possessions (1689)

Of course terrorists are real and dangerous, while “witches” are not.  But if one were to believe Cheney, it appears that we are fighting a supernatural power, a fight that requires us to sacrifice the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, and our morality.   Witches were so dangerous and possessed such demonic powers that torture was certainly justified, and the same is true of terrorists (or alleged terrorists) for Cheney.  I bet he feels just as powerful and self-righteous as those who thought that they were saving us from demons and wizards, for one must be very powerful indeed to fight such foes.  But one must also be very scared, perhaps even a bit of a coward, to believe in foes of this sort.

Boo!

First, a brief reminder of how the Bush administration handled the crime of torture.  Let’s call it “the few bad apples excuse.”

Yesterday, Wednesday, April 13, 2009 was a sad day for the Obama administration.  The President decided to reverse his administration’s pledge to release photographs of acts of torture committed by Americans, photos that could be used as further evidence of how widespread state sanctioned torture had been under Bush.  But it was not his decision to hold back the photos that was patently reprehensible.  Obama argued that the release of the photographs could endanger our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and whether one agrees with this assessment or not, it has to be taken seriously.  What is not acceptable, and what is not worthy of this president, is to suggest that those who committed these acts were only a small number of individuals.  Once again this places the onus on those who actually carried out the acts as opposed to the leaders who ordered and sanctioned them.  In other words, Obama used a version of the “bad apples excuse” to support his decision, which is just what the Bush administration did when the photos of Abu Ghraib first appeared

The New York Times reported on the president’s press conference announcing his decision in an article, “Obama Moves to Bar Release of Detainee Abuse Photos.” Two excerpts:

“The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals,” Mr. Obama told reporters on the South Lawn. “In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.” (emphasis added)

The article then went on to quote a spokesman from the A.C.L.U.

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., said the decision to fight the release of the photos was a mistake. He said officials had described them as “worse than Abu Ghraib” and said their volume, more than 2,000 images, showed that “it is no longer tenable to blame abuse on a few bad apples. These were policies set at the highest level.”

….

It’s not clear what Obama’s tactics are here.  He is well aware of the previous administration’s culpability.  Perhaps he has decided that keeping his hands clean and letting Congress handle the torture investigation is the path of least resistance, one that will allow him to pursue more important matters.  But this maneuver doesn’t require him to assert the few bad apples excuse.  The question is why he decided to make this specious argument.  And he made it on the very same day that he said the following during commencement at Arizona State.

“In recent years, in many ways, we’ve become enamored with our own success, lulled into complacency by our own achievements,” he said, citing the economic crisis. “We started taking shortcuts. We started living on credit, instead of building up savings. We saw businesses focus more on rebranding and repackaging than innovating and developing new ideas that improve our lives.”  New York Times, May 13, 2009,  “Work Is Never Done, Obama Tells Class”

Read these words and think about Obama’s actions yesterday.  Read these words and think about some of the “shortcuts” that he has been taking.  (See Andrew Sullivan’s article, “The Fierce Urgency Of Whenever,” on Obama’s backsliding on the treatment of gays.)  Read these words and think about the Obama brand.  And ask, who is Barack Obama really speaking about when he speaks about repackaging?  Rhetorical flourishes are not going to provide him with cover if there is too great a disjunction between his words, his other words, and his deeds.

Yes, Obama cannot be expected to remake the U.S. in a 100 days.  The question is whether there is a misguided expediency at work, one in which the shortest path is assumed to be established lines in the sand.

We cannot let this slogan become merely a slogan.   As per Obama’s request, we will remind him, hound him, when his rudder may need some work.

Well, just when you think that you have carved out a niche for yourself, it seems that the whole planet has moved in.  In June 2008 I posted a blog,” Obama, Spock, and the New Star Trek Nation,” in which I drew a connection between Spock and Obama, and I also discussed how the times might be right (once again) for Star Trek’s positive utopian vision.  I even quoted from Shatner’s (Captain Kirk’s) book, Up Till Now, about how the fans had saved the original Star Trek.

“As a result of this campaign, NBC received, trumpets blare here, more than 1,000,000 letters urging the network not to cancel the show….[It was not cancelled] Perhaps more important the people who wrote the letters suddenly had an emotional attachment to a television program unlike any viewers ever before. They had actually influenced a network’s programming decision. They had ownership. Star Trek really had become their show. This marked the beginning of the most unusual relationship between viewers and a TV series in history.”

I compared this sense of ownership to what many of Obama’s supporters were experiencing due to their involvement in his campaign.  In any case, I/we now have to deal with this:

It seems that sometime last year a toy company, a one Jailbreak Toys, starting selling Obama action figures.   Is nothing sacred?  Or perhaps this is how we express what we most admire in America, we turn them into action toys.

….

UPDATE, May 10.  It turns out the the Jailbreak Toys does make action figures, including ones of Obama, but those of Obama and Biden (above) were from an event held in NYC in which artists created action figures.  The photo, which I thought had come from the company, can be found at iPhoneSavior.