There exists a great chasm in modern American society, those who think and those who repeat. It's always been this way, but the chasm has spread widely like the Red Sea at Moses's grand gesture in Egypt. And while many accuse George W. Bush of excaberating that divide (the societal one, not the one relating to the Red Sea) that's largely a myth, though the result is equally troubling.
After Bush's "victory" over Al Gore in 2000, there were a good number of Americans who observed that, despite Bush's obvious stupidity (especially in comparison to Gore's intelligence), his cabinet and his advisors were more than competent and, aside from John Ashcroft, relatively common-sense-oriented people who knew how things worked among the Beltway Boys and could handle (and manhandle) lots at once. When 9/11 occurred, a leftover from the Clinton Administration's focus on domestic policies, fiscal responsibility and Monica Lewinsky's willingness to administer fellatio, this country was steered and guided in the ultra-right-wing direction of National Security.
Unfortunately, George Bush's legacy may be as one of the most devout, religiously hypocritical presidents this nation has had since Jimmy Carter. Except Jimmy Carter's obvious flaw was that he did too much fantasizing and too little acting. While Jimmy Carter's intelligence was obvious, his abilities to implement and carry out intelligent policy failed miserably, whereas his modern counterpart seemingly has no obvious intellect. The main problem with our President isn't his lack of intellect, however; it's his willingness to pursue ridiculous, disposable issues at a time when the nation needs to focus (and solve) serious crises, both abroad and domestically. For my money, there is no better example of this than Bush's crusade against gay marriage.
Personally, I'm not really "opposed" to gay marriage; I think it's somewhat sacrilegious and a bit odd to conduct a ceremony between two people of the same sex when the legal definition of marriage is a union betwen a man and a woman. However, if two people love each other and want to make a life together, they should be entitled and should certainly be able to publicly celebrate and call attention to that intention. And why should homosexual couples not receive the same legal rights and protections as heterosexual couples? In other words, while I'm not really in favor of it, I'm certainly not opposed to it. As Bobcat Goldthwaite once opined on The Howard Stern Show, why should I care where Elton John is parking his genitalia? It seems to me that, while this topic, as do the topics of capital punishment and abortion, merit a reaction, I don't feel the debate on gay weddings deserves an enduring national spotlight.
Hiding behind the Bible seems to work for a great many presidents, but none more than this one. Yet the last time the Bible had any day to day significance, at least in my opinion, was when people sacrificed animals to improve the upcoming crop. These days, farmers use Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, the Internet and solar power, not an altar or an almanac, to improve their crop. So why should Cain and Abel advise us on domestic and international policy? We might as well study Aesop's Fables if all we need are some catchy metaphors to guide us through difficult times.
I feel the problem is it's easier to address softball issues like gay marriage and prayer in schools over hot potatoes like the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and Asia and the burgeoning national deficit.
Addressing Fred and David's upcoming nuptials is simpler in form and function than is Iran's and North Korea's interest in upping the ante. And that makes sense -- except what the cabinet is doing is essentially sticking their heads in the sand. And the last time that happened, we witnessed the attack on the USS Cole and the aforementioned atrocities that occurred on 9/11. Ignoring it and hoping it will go away isn't good policy, unless your interest is seeing the United States forfeit much, if not all, of its international presence and respect.
What also concerns me is the increasing distance America's leaders have forged between themselves and their goals. Our presence in Iraq, based on everything we've heard from Bush, Cheney (who?), Powell and Rumsfeld has been to help the Iraqi people. So why, when insurgents mount victorious mini-campaigns against American soldiers, does the Iraqi populace cheer its arab brethren? Because the Arab world would rather see a cancerous cult leader like Osama bin Laden unify and stand up to American imperialism than watch America provide help and assistance to a down-but-not-out nation. Germany's pride extinguished itself after World War I and was reborn prior to and subsequently castrated after World War II. Arab nations would rather be eradicated and buried in the sand than accept emasculation and assistance.
The mujahadeen of Afghanistan and Northern Africa, similarly, resist any interference in their nations, despite the goal of those who provide it, simply because having foreigners on their soil is more repulsive to them than losing their lives to a stronger, but ethnically similar, enemy. Whether the problem is the origin and ability of the Shah of Iran in the 1970's or the support and subsequent embarassment over said support of bin Laden against the Soviets in the 1980's, the problem is clear -- our involvement, good or bad, is going to be resisted and challenged.
The problem as I see it has been in existence for a great number of years: we'd rather have a car salesman sell us bullshit (can I get the underbody coating included in the sticker price, Mr. Clinton?) than a genuine, honest man who will tell us what we don't want to hear but will offer up some possible roads to solutions of our nation's problems. It's the infomercial syndrome we, as Americans, embrace -- no one believes we will be svelte, lithe and attractive by merely swallowing 30 days' worth of dietary supplements from a company located in a basement in Newark, NJ, yet the company that sells us hopes and dreams in a white plastic bottle stays in business for years. We'll buy snake oil if the model on the stage turntable gives us that come hither look, and we'll gladly buy now, pay later for mistakes that will cost us for generations, even though we know deep down the model isn't interested, the white plastic bottle houses common vitamins and, ultimately, we're going wrong.
And while I am an unabashed supporter of this country and will always consider myself a proud American, I'd much rather discuss why we're focusing on Fred and David getting hitched (and who will be the "bride" and who will be the "groom") than discussing whether they have a right to do so in the first place. Whether it's Marbury v. Madison, Roe v. Wade or Smith/Smith v. the Federal Government, I'd like to know that the policies we need to consider are being considered, not merely pushed to the far end of the desk to curl up, fade to yellow and fall into the Presidential Wastebasket.
Along with Fred and David's wedding invite.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment