The pundits are predicting a prolonged effect on the economy of the mortgage crisis that first devolved into a monetary crunch and may now become a consumer credit fiasco. The swift systemic shutdown is reaching into every corner of the economy and the solutions of the current administration range from ineffectual to marginal. The non-existent leadership of W is more pronounced as his lame-duck nomenclature defines his final months as President – a broken wing and crestfallen face proceeding into oblivion.
Obama and the Democratic Congress are demonstrating a willingness to place a steady hand on the rudder. The US automobile industry is being asked to demonstrate how government funding would alter and improve their management practices. Government reassurances of a backing on funds, is preventing a run on Citibank despite the crashing stock.
A multitude of ideas are being offered – Refinance home mortgages, Buy back toxic mortgage-backed assets, Create a public works program rivaling the Great Depression. But can the US government really solve this problem by itself?
For the past half-century, the US has been at the top of its game – the largest economy, highest worker productivity, superior graduate education. Generations of immigrants found their way to a country that promised hard work and entrepreneurship would lead to a better life. Perhaps not permanently, but now that position is compromised.
China this week offered assistance to the US to aid in the crisis. China?!? The totalitarian, communist country which only three decades ago could barely feed its billion plus population? The country of melamine in milk, toxins in toothpaste, bird flu and lead paint on children’s toys? The country with the world’s highest savings rate, double-digit growth, the most successful Olympics? Whether you’re a Sinophile or Sinophobe the facts are undeniable – China with its large savings is in a better position than we are now.
The US could swallow its pride and accept the offers – which may also come from other corners of the world like Abu Dhabi or Russia. But do we really have to? These countries have historically not been our friends.
Pal Joey, a revival of the Rodgers-Hart musical based off the John O’Hara book is now playing at Studio 54. A studied example of late-Depression Chicago, Joey Evans is a second-rate stage performer and an unattractive character. He employs charm and cunning to use people for his own goals. Impregnating a chorus girl and then leaving her alone for the abortion; courting a new-comer from Minnesota only to swap her for a high-society woman of leisure; extracting funds from his sugar-mama to start-up his own nightclub, Joey pursues convenient choices at the expense of morality on his climb to stardom and riches.
Joey is not hesitant to use his acquaintances for his own good. And somehow folks fall under his spell and are willing to oblige, because he helps them as well. The show itself still in previews has not yet sparked. The characters provide strong performances – Stockard Channing wows as elder woman bewildered and bothered by the relationship; Christian Hoff from Jersey Boys is magnetic as the rakish title character. Yet the show moves like a variety show rather than a cohesive whole. This may change as it reaches opening night in December. Regardless, Joey remains the affable cad with whom people initially engage with a wary eye and yet inevitably become pals.
There are similar parallels in our lives. For Thanksgiving, we are going to see Klaus’ dad (Niels) and having turkey dinner with his friend, Joan and her family. Joan has been a great comfort for Niels since Klaus’ mom passed away. Her husband passed away five years ago, and the two have known each other for over thirty years. It’s difficult to imagine Niels with anyone except Klaus’ mom, but neither Klaus nor his sister live close enough to California to be with him on a daily basis. Joan provides companionship, empathy and intellectual challenge. She is not a replacement for Klaus’ mom and is a constant reminder that in times of need, solace can come from surprising corners.
It doesn’t make us a lesser person or a lesser country to receive assistance from others especially when we can’t accomplish something ourselves. Regardless of how much we like the person or how others will judge the situation, the support may prevent an even worse fate – bankruptcy, isolation, depression.
As a country, we should be cautious in any transaction and ensure that there is actual benefit down the line. But despite their shortcoming, can we really refuse their kindness? Beggars can’t be choosers.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Some thoughts on… Keeping up with the Jones
As the world economy grows dimmer and enters into a gloomy Holiday season, in the US we are still basking in the enduring rays of a historic election. The country has a black President-elect and can claim a moral high-ground once again.
From formal and informal polls, world-wide support for Obama is strong, and especially in Europe it is overwhelming.The EU support is sincere and appreciated, but is there an underlying hypocrisy to the sentiment? Similar to the South-Asian family that celebrates the marriage of their friends’ daughter to a black man and secretly prays that it never happens in their home, would any of the Big-5 European countries ever elect a non-white head of state?
A high-level glance at demographics shows the number and composition of the non-white population in the US is significantly larger than the other countries.Total Population in Millions (% of Population that is White)
UK - 60.8 M (84%)
France - 64.5 M (85%)
Spain - 40.5 M (94%)
Italy - 59.5 M (95%)
Germany -82.4 M (92%)
US - 305.7 M (68%)
Source: Government Census Projections
Evidently, the US can draw from a much larger ethnic population and has a much larger pool of talented, people of color. Presumably, once the non-indigenous groups in these other nations grow, a minority leader is bound to emerge. This reasoning is naïve, for the answer to the EU election question is not simply an availability of talented non-white people resident in these countries.
Within a major democracy, the possibility for electing a person from a minority group is precipitated by 1) the willingness and urge of a person to take on such a position, and 2) the means that the society provides to achieve the goal. The cultural landscape provides some insight into these two criteria. Billy Elliott: The Musical is a new Broadway show that captures the joy of the original movie and plays it out to the music of Elton John. Set during the harsh days of the Miner’s Strike of 1984 in a Northern England town, the show describes the story of an 11-year old growing up in a generations-old, coal-mining family. The recent loss of his mother, the deteriorating state of the town’s economic situation, and the slow break-down of his own family are harsh realities of his upbringing. But Billy is uplifted by an internal inspiration – his desire to dance – and he secretly joins ballet class at the community center.
His talent is undeniable and the show unspools to resolve the central conflict: a dream of attending the Royal Ballet School balanced by the need to first convince his miner family and then escape from the embittered landscape of a community that rarely steps outside of its own borders. The show delights in the idiosyncrasies of small-town dynamics – the communal warmth, the disregard for change, the hidden pride for those who succeed outside. In the end, Billy’s dreams are realized through the support of the entire town that breaks its own stereotypes in recognition of a true gift.
The trippy, unswerving and intoxicating film Slumdog Millionaire is a unique invention of cultural globalization. Jamal is a child from the slums of Mumbai, growing up in the accelerating world of modern India. We meet him as a contestant on the Hindi Who Wants to be a Millionaire? This uneducated slumdog has somehow managed to answer a succession of questions that could win him the contest. Has he cheated? Is he just lucky? Or is it written?
The movie swirls through the world of literally rags-to-riches India. Dev Patel portrays the hero with an engrossing earnestness that draws the audience into the stories he relates. Even as he is being challenged by the police, the show’s producers, and life in general, Jamal relentlessly pursues his drive to win and thus gain the heart of his life’s love.
In the US, we thrive on tales of the underdog overcoming adversity to achieve an unattainable goal. It is our folklore, our ethic. The fundamental morality feeds an urge to succeed and sets up the enabling mechanisms. It is a positive reinforcement cycle – the more we enable disenfranchised youth to succeed, the more the younger generation takes on leadership roles, the more the country benefits. You can be anything you want to be in the States. The systems are not perfect, but they seem to be further evolved than our counter-parts across the Atlantic.
Europe has missed this cycle, and likely will not catch up for decades. A nascent ethnic population that feels unheard and disconnected from the center of power; a political system composed of closed doors and willful separation; and a lack of population diversity all lead to one too many hurdles to overcome.
Maybe we need to look to the emerging democracies of India and Brazil with their relatively diverse populations to keep up with the American Jones’ and set a similar example of political leadership?
From formal and informal polls, world-wide support for Obama is strong, and especially in Europe it is overwhelming.The EU support is sincere and appreciated, but is there an underlying hypocrisy to the sentiment? Similar to the South-Asian family that celebrates the marriage of their friends’ daughter to a black man and secretly prays that it never happens in their home, would any of the Big-5 European countries ever elect a non-white head of state?
A high-level glance at demographics shows the number and composition of the non-white population in the US is significantly larger than the other countries.Total Population in Millions (% of Population that is White)
UK - 60.8 M (84%)
France - 64.5 M (85%)
Spain - 40.5 M (94%)
Italy - 59.5 M (95%)
Germany -82.4 M (92%)
US - 305.7 M (68%)
Source: Government Census Projections
Evidently, the US can draw from a much larger ethnic population and has a much larger pool of talented, people of color. Presumably, once the non-indigenous groups in these other nations grow, a minority leader is bound to emerge. This reasoning is naïve, for the answer to the EU election question is not simply an availability of talented non-white people resident in these countries.
Within a major democracy, the possibility for electing a person from a minority group is precipitated by 1) the willingness and urge of a person to take on such a position, and 2) the means that the society provides to achieve the goal. The cultural landscape provides some insight into these two criteria. Billy Elliott: The Musical is a new Broadway show that captures the joy of the original movie and plays it out to the music of Elton John. Set during the harsh days of the Miner’s Strike of 1984 in a Northern England town, the show describes the story of an 11-year old growing up in a generations-old, coal-mining family. The recent loss of his mother, the deteriorating state of the town’s economic situation, and the slow break-down of his own family are harsh realities of his upbringing. But Billy is uplifted by an internal inspiration – his desire to dance – and he secretly joins ballet class at the community center.
His talent is undeniable and the show unspools to resolve the central conflict: a dream of attending the Royal Ballet School balanced by the need to first convince his miner family and then escape from the embittered landscape of a community that rarely steps outside of its own borders. The show delights in the idiosyncrasies of small-town dynamics – the communal warmth, the disregard for change, the hidden pride for those who succeed outside. In the end, Billy’s dreams are realized through the support of the entire town that breaks its own stereotypes in recognition of a true gift.
The trippy, unswerving and intoxicating film Slumdog Millionaire is a unique invention of cultural globalization. Jamal is a child from the slums of Mumbai, growing up in the accelerating world of modern India. We meet him as a contestant on the Hindi Who Wants to be a Millionaire? This uneducated slumdog has somehow managed to answer a succession of questions that could win him the contest. Has he cheated? Is he just lucky? Or is it written?
The movie swirls through the world of literally rags-to-riches India. Dev Patel portrays the hero with an engrossing earnestness that draws the audience into the stories he relates. Even as he is being challenged by the police, the show’s producers, and life in general, Jamal relentlessly pursues his drive to win and thus gain the heart of his life’s love.
In the US, we thrive on tales of the underdog overcoming adversity to achieve an unattainable goal. It is our folklore, our ethic. The fundamental morality feeds an urge to succeed and sets up the enabling mechanisms. It is a positive reinforcement cycle – the more we enable disenfranchised youth to succeed, the more the younger generation takes on leadership roles, the more the country benefits. You can be anything you want to be in the States. The systems are not perfect, but they seem to be further evolved than our counter-parts across the Atlantic.
Europe has missed this cycle, and likely will not catch up for decades. A nascent ethnic population that feels unheard and disconnected from the center of power; a political system composed of closed doors and willful separation; and a lack of population diversity all lead to one too many hurdles to overcome.
Maybe we need to look to the emerging democracies of India and Brazil with their relatively diverse populations to keep up with the American Jones’ and set a similar example of political leadership?
Some thoughts on… Raising Expectations
What a historic moment! America has elected a President who has brought back pride and honor to the position. And the vote was overwhelming. A global love affair with the Commander in Chief has begun and is moving past the honeymoon stage to the recognition of day to day realities. The cabinet is being chosen and key decisions on the economy are being conducted. The haste is appropriate, and expectations are high for a Chief of State who by many (present company included) is seen as a ray of light in the darkening gloom.
But why are we raising our expectations of what can be accomplished? We know that the Chief Legislator can never complete all that needs to be done to get out of our current mess.
An expectation is defined as the situation that is most likely to happen. Upon the election (and subsequent re-election) of W. it seemed our goals of what a President could achieve were lowered to an unfathomable level and then were celebrated as accomplishments
- Osama bin Laden couldn’t be captured (mission accomplished)
- We could conduct a war in Iraq and be hated by the world (mission accomplished)
- An all-time high fiscal surplus could be turned into a fiscal deficit (mission accomplished)
- Prisoners could be detained without civil liberties and publicly humiliated (mission accomplished)
- Spending on education and health care could be dramatically reduced (mission accomplished)
And we as Americans allowed this to happen. We protested but we didn’t demand a higher level of accountability. We saw this gradual decline as inevitable, unmovable, or inherent. We implicitly conspired and collectively lowered our expectations of Government.
Outside of my parents, two family figures influenced me significantly while I was growing up. The first was my paternal grandfather. A gentle soul he taught me many things during our trips to Bangladesh – how to go shopping in the fresh vegetable market with mud up to my ankles; how to hold a chicken while its head was chopped off; how to haggle with a motor-taxi; how to play gin rummy like a pro. He was also a scholar who received a Masters degree from the US back in the 1940’s when it was rare for people to leave Bangladesh. His clothes were impeccable when he was young, he had a sweet tooth and loved good food, and with my grandmother he raised my father and five siblings through the separation of Pakistan from India and Bangladesh from Pakistan.
His tutelage was gentle and always pushed the borders. If I was scared to hold the chicken upside down (so that blood would rush to its head and it wouldn’t squirm as much), he would initially hold it with me and eventually let go. If I was hesitant in the muddy streets, he would walk ahead to show me the dry path. When I made a stupid mistake with the cards, he would point it out and then let me play again. His challenges for me were high, and he always expected me to attain them. In his youth, he had won two gold medals in mathematics. One was stolen by the Pakistani soldiers during Bangladesh separation, the other he promised to give to me if I excelled in school. It made me study my Advanced Calculus in the hot heat of a Dhaka summer even harder.
My mother’s eldest brother, passed away this last week. Her father died when my mom was five years old, and my uncle took the responsibility of running the extended family in Assam which included five other brothers. Our visits to Assam were as frequent as to Dhaka, every two years, and Goalpara, India was definitely more fun to visit. The family lived in a remote town and the houses were on a large expanse of land which was the communal plot. Life was slower and much safer there, and so it was easy to spend time just talking the day away.
Avuncular, knowledgeable, and sometimes strict, my uncle would quiz me on various topics of interest – How does a computer work? Why does skin repair itself? Who just won Wimbledon? His style was inquisitive and platonic. He knew answers to many of the questions but he wanted me to express my viewpoint and learn himself. After every dialogue, in an earnest and strained voice he would say, “We have great expectations of you; You need to be a great man”. My boro mama (term for eldest maternal uncle in Bengali) didn’t study past college and primarily stayed in India, and yet he always demanded that we educate ourselves to the highest level possible. His message was revelatory and unwavering – push yourself and impact the world.
From them both I learned that setting high expectations is in many ways believing and loving the person. We don’t set high expectations for people who we don’t believe can accomplish them. Obama through the campaign has already cleared some high hurdles. He ran the most organized campaign in recorded history; he gathered more financial support than any other candidate through small and large donations; he came from behind to defeat the incumbent in the Democratic Party, Hilary, and then the incumbent party of the Presidency.
A half hour before his acceptance speech on Nov 4 and just after McCain had spoken, the Chief Diplomat - elect sent an email to his supporters thanking them for their hard work and giving them credit for the success. He also started a website (http://www.change.gov/page/content/americanmoment) soliciting suggestions to make the administration better.
Incredible! Transparent leadership? Participatory democracy? A humble Presidency? Why not set the expectations as high as possible again for the US?
Generate the most Nobel Prizes of any country
Assume the role of financial lender of last resort
Maintain the best academic institutions in the world that are a magnet for the brightest talent
Provide basic health care to all residents
Increase dependence on sustainable energy resources
Regain stature for global, moral leadership
Preserve the dollar as the currency of the world
Incent the most innovative industries and patents
Provide humanitarian assistance to the world’s needs
We should not only expect this of our government and our Chief Executive – we need to demand it. It is unacceptable that we have set our own sights so low that we say it is a success when a vice-presidential candidate can get through a debate without making a fool of herself.
The higher we aspire the more we lift ourselves as a nation to the challenge of achieving the goals. What do we have to lose? If we don’t attain our ambitions, we will have at least reached higher, and can we really be any more disappointed than we have been for the past 8 years?
Some thoughts on... Restoring Faith
In the UK as in the States, the biggest topic of discussion is the Presidential election. There is an overwhelming support for Obama, and his rise to the top position is viewed as a means of rebuilding international respectability. Similar to people supporting Barack in America, they see him as a person who will re-establish a multi-lateral approach to world engagement rather than pursue the forced unilateralism approach of an unchecked super-power prevalent over the past eight years.
But are we placing undue hope on the shoulders of one skinny, black man?
Three of the hottest shows on Broadway and the West End are touching on this theme of faith lost and restored in the face of questionable moral choices. They provide some answers to this question.
Zorro the Musical interweaves the music of the Gypsy Kings around the classic story of a wayward swordsman jousting for justice in the California colonies of Spain. Diego (Zorro) is brought up with Ramon as his brother. Ramon diverges to become a totalitarian dictator forcing the army he leads to exploit the pueblo population. Diego inspired by his father’s memory vows to fight against the injustice. As Zorro takes on the cruel regime, the awaiting and until now passive population follows in Zorro’s example to vanquish the oppressive leader. Without the example of an illuminating leader the people would not be inspired; without the repressive regime Zorro would not arise as a guiding light. To place hope on a leader’s shoulders we need to find ourselves in a situation which we can not get out of by ourselves.
All My Sons is one of the first plays by Arthur Miller, the Pulitzer Prize winning writer of Death of a Salesman and The Crucible. In the glorious glow of the 1950’s, a family is recovering from the death of a son during the WWII. The family’s older son discovers the father’s involvement in creating faulty airplane parts that may have resulted in the death of a squadron of airmen during the war. Mrs. Tom Cruise (Katie Holmes) flits about as the girlfriend of the dead son and the soon to be wife of the older brother. The rest of the cast bring gravitas to the play; Patrick Wilson betrayed by his father’s morals (John Lithgow) is wounded by the indirect sin. Dianne Wiest is the mother in denial trying to reconcile a fallen son against the egregious choices of a husband. Despite the love of his family, the elder son pushes aside his family allegiance to reject his father’s moral uncertainty. The younger generation’s questioning and refusal of the existing business and ethical code, brings catharsis to the players and the audience for the dreadful choices of a fallen man.
Christopher Shinn’s play Now or Later is almost too prescient and clever. On the eve of election night in the US, the democratic presidential nominee faces a quandary. His ivy-league, gay son just attended a campus Halloween party dressed as an unflattering Prophet Mohammed. The son holds his own moral judgments, and is trying to prove a point on freedom of expression around Islam. This heady mix of religion and politics challenges and resettles our own borders of cultural acceptance and personal fortitude. To what extent to do we impose our own cultural and religious beliefs on others? Few answers are provided by the play, but it provokes and enlightens the arguments from each side. The characters are forced to reckon with their actions, compromise on their staunch positions, and minimize their own egos by accepting that no issue is as black and white as we would wish,. In the end, settling on a middle-ground in political matters rather than sharp ideologue may be the only way to bring about change.
Could a person who provides inspiration, questioning and then a middle-ground be what we need to counter the uni-laterial views of a decrepit administration and restore our faith in the US system?
But are we placing undue hope on the shoulders of one skinny, black man?
Three of the hottest shows on Broadway and the West End are touching on this theme of faith lost and restored in the face of questionable moral choices. They provide some answers to this question.
Zorro the Musical interweaves the music of the Gypsy Kings around the classic story of a wayward swordsman jousting for justice in the California colonies of Spain. Diego (Zorro) is brought up with Ramon as his brother. Ramon diverges to become a totalitarian dictator forcing the army he leads to exploit the pueblo population. Diego inspired by his father’s memory vows to fight against the injustice. As Zorro takes on the cruel regime, the awaiting and until now passive population follows in Zorro’s example to vanquish the oppressive leader. Without the example of an illuminating leader the people would not be inspired; without the repressive regime Zorro would not arise as a guiding light. To place hope on a leader’s shoulders we need to find ourselves in a situation which we can not get out of by ourselves.
All My Sons is one of the first plays by Arthur Miller, the Pulitzer Prize winning writer of Death of a Salesman and The Crucible. In the glorious glow of the 1950’s, a family is recovering from the death of a son during the WWII. The family’s older son discovers the father’s involvement in creating faulty airplane parts that may have resulted in the death of a squadron of airmen during the war. Mrs. Tom Cruise (Katie Holmes) flits about as the girlfriend of the dead son and the soon to be wife of the older brother. The rest of the cast bring gravitas to the play; Patrick Wilson betrayed by his father’s morals (John Lithgow) is wounded by the indirect sin. Dianne Wiest is the mother in denial trying to reconcile a fallen son against the egregious choices of a husband. Despite the love of his family, the elder son pushes aside his family allegiance to reject his father’s moral uncertainty. The younger generation’s questioning and refusal of the existing business and ethical code, brings catharsis to the players and the audience for the dreadful choices of a fallen man.
Christopher Shinn’s play Now or Later is almost too prescient and clever. On the eve of election night in the US, the democratic presidential nominee faces a quandary. His ivy-league, gay son just attended a campus Halloween party dressed as an unflattering Prophet Mohammed. The son holds his own moral judgments, and is trying to prove a point on freedom of expression around Islam. This heady mix of religion and politics challenges and resettles our own borders of cultural acceptance and personal fortitude. To what extent to do we impose our own cultural and religious beliefs on others? Few answers are provided by the play, but it provokes and enlightens the arguments from each side. The characters are forced to reckon with their actions, compromise on their staunch positions, and minimize their own egos by accepting that no issue is as black and white as we would wish,. In the end, settling on a middle-ground in political matters rather than sharp ideologue may be the only way to bring about change.
Could a person who provides inspiration, questioning and then a middle-ground be what we need to counter the uni-laterial views of a decrepit administration and restore our faith in the US system?
Some thoughts on... Getting out of our Echo Room
An article in Klaus’ organizational behavior class discussed how we naturally gravitate towards people, locations, communities where we hear sentiments aligned with our own perspectives. We naturally step into these Echo Rooms and feel comfortable with the repeated voices and opinions that surround us. It validates our egos and is like harmonious music in the background.
With the Presidential campaign at full crescendo, I realized that in my own Echo Room, the Obama voices seem to be prevalent and overwhelming. The counter perspectives of course exist through the Wall Street Journal or Lou Dobbs on CNN, but it is easy to rationalize these voices away since they are not personalized.
Over the past few weeks though, I found myself in a position to listen to some dissonant perspectives. They were different from the familiar echoes, and they are paraphrased below. The person’s background and the setting provide a little more context.
1. “I voted for Bush twice, and believe he was a terrible President. But I am still
going to vote for McCain because Obama doesn’t have experience.” White woman in her mid-fifties with two kids, married to a retired pharmaceutical industry leader, and having drinks at Atlantic Grill in UES Manhattan, NY.
2. “It doesn’t matter if I vote for Obama, nothing is going to change”. White thirty-something man living in a predominantly Black neighborhood in South Philadelphia, PA.
3. “It feels like a coronation for Obama. He is new and I don’t trust him.” Thirty-year old Bengali-American living in the suburbs of Washington DC.
4. “McCain made a bad choice with Palin but he is still trustworthy”. White thirty something school-teacher living in Long Island, NY.
5. “I could vote for him if only his name were different”. White mid-fifties barman working in Sag Harbor, NY.
Hearing any of these arguments on the screen or print, I would have ready counter points to them. For (1) Obama has run the most well-organized campaign and has the best experts counseling him; (2) Well things can’t get much worse. (3) and (4) McCain’s choice for Palin reveals his poor, untrustworthy, and quixotic decision compared to Obama’s rigorous and well thought-out judgments; (5) His name is different but his background is not that different from John Smith.
But listening to the reasons in a one-on-one circumstance, forced me to reflect on the underlying concerns expressed here. It’s too easy to label all these folks as “biased” or “racist” – that’s not what is playing out. I think the issue is that they fear change – they are unwilling to embrace uncertainty.
These folks are not scared of a black man, they were obviously discussing the issue with me quite earnestly and openly. Instead they fear the unknown as expressed by Obama. Somehow an old, white man in the Oval Office provides more comfort that things won’t change that much; that we need to only make a 90 degree shift in our current policy direction rather than a 180 degree shift.
Many of us may not agree that the change in direction should only be 90 degrees, but fundamentally we can’t relieve these qualms through purely rational arguments. These folks are sending out an emotional call into their Echo Rooms that requires an equally emotional response. By providing a perspective of why change is OK or by sharing our own fears about Obama, we may be able to help the folks on the fence feel more comfortable with the differing viewpoint.
Is it perhaps better to change the sounds in a person’s Echo Room by making distinct and perceptible revisions that are still comfortable, rather than trying to jar them into submission? A rational argument is sometimes too discordant a response
With the Presidential campaign at full crescendo, I realized that in my own Echo Room, the Obama voices seem to be prevalent and overwhelming. The counter perspectives of course exist through the Wall Street Journal or Lou Dobbs on CNN, but it is easy to rationalize these voices away since they are not personalized.
Over the past few weeks though, I found myself in a position to listen to some dissonant perspectives. They were different from the familiar echoes, and they are paraphrased below. The person’s background and the setting provide a little more context.
1. “I voted for Bush twice, and believe he was a terrible President. But I am still
going to vote for McCain because Obama doesn’t have experience.” White woman in her mid-fifties with two kids, married to a retired pharmaceutical industry leader, and having drinks at Atlantic Grill in UES Manhattan, NY.
2. “It doesn’t matter if I vote for Obama, nothing is going to change”. White thirty-something man living in a predominantly Black neighborhood in South Philadelphia, PA.
3. “It feels like a coronation for Obama. He is new and I don’t trust him.” Thirty-year old Bengali-American living in the suburbs of Washington DC.
4. “McCain made a bad choice with Palin but he is still trustworthy”. White thirty something school-teacher living in Long Island, NY.
5. “I could vote for him if only his name were different”. White mid-fifties barman working in Sag Harbor, NY.
Hearing any of these arguments on the screen or print, I would have ready counter points to them. For (1) Obama has run the most well-organized campaign and has the best experts counseling him; (2) Well things can’t get much worse. (3) and (4) McCain’s choice for Palin reveals his poor, untrustworthy, and quixotic decision compared to Obama’s rigorous and well thought-out judgments; (5) His name is different but his background is not that different from John Smith.
But listening to the reasons in a one-on-one circumstance, forced me to reflect on the underlying concerns expressed here. It’s too easy to label all these folks as “biased” or “racist” – that’s not what is playing out. I think the issue is that they fear change – they are unwilling to embrace uncertainty.
These folks are not scared of a black man, they were obviously discussing the issue with me quite earnestly and openly. Instead they fear the unknown as expressed by Obama. Somehow an old, white man in the Oval Office provides more comfort that things won’t change that much; that we need to only make a 90 degree shift in our current policy direction rather than a 180 degree shift.
Many of us may not agree that the change in direction should only be 90 degrees, but fundamentally we can’t relieve these qualms through purely rational arguments. These folks are sending out an emotional call into their Echo Rooms that requires an equally emotional response. By providing a perspective of why change is OK or by sharing our own fears about Obama, we may be able to help the folks on the fence feel more comfortable with the differing viewpoint.
Is it perhaps better to change the sounds in a person’s Echo Room by making distinct and perceptible revisions that are still comfortable, rather than trying to jar them into submission? A rational argument is sometimes too discordant a response
Some Thoughts on... Liberal Elitism
A message to my cousin:
It was so good to see you on Eid and to debate the Presidential campaign. You know that you should support and vote for who you think and feel will be the best candidate to lead the nation over the next few years, whether that is McCain or Obama. The point that worried me the most about your arguments wasn't directly around the candidates, but your use of the word "elite" with a negative connotation to describe liberals who may be supporting Obama.
The word elite is being used a lot in the media and there are many meanings that are floating around. The three definitions that I think are most relevant to describe a person who is elite are:
1. Someone who is a high achiever – athletes, artists, scientists, writers, academics. Almost any one who excels at what they do can be put in this category. I think the use of elite for these people is appropriate and should not have a negative meaning. For example, the Navy Seals are an elite arm of the military since they are high achievers and strive for excellence.
2. Someone who looks down on others. These people are also known as snobs. This is not a good thing.
3. Someone who wants to preserve inequality or differences. In the 50's, the "white elite" in the South tried hard to repress the rights of different races. These people are inherently snobs by definition since they look down on other people.
Taking these definitions, I want to point out three ways how the conservative media and some politicians are actually intertwining these different definitions to create a confused use of the word "elite".
First, you are elite under the first definition, and that is not a bad thing. You are intelligent and intuitive and have had a world-class education. An elite achiever is not necessarily a snob or someone who wants to preserve inequality. The negative media around the word elite has created this Catch-22 trap where people who are achievers feel that they need to hide their accomplishments in order to be "Joe Six-Pack". This focus in the end only encourages mediocrity. People should not be snobbish about their achievements, and people who do achieve have an obligation to help those who do not achieve as high.
Second, people have equated Obama and sometimes the organizations, newspapers and academics that support him as elitest. These people are mixing the first and second definition of elite. Obama and some of his supporters (the New York Times, Robert Reich, Thomas Friedman, etc) are all high achievers. But that does not mean they are snobs! Obama in particular is working very hard to support working-class voters who may not be high achievers but should receive support nonetheless.
The third point is that it is actually the Republican party that historically has been the elite party under the third definition – because their mandate is to preserve the status quo and preserve inequality. It's funny that conservative politicians, like Karl Rove and Michael Bennett, have been using the word "elite" as a negative word against liberals, when it is the GOP that historically has looked down on other classes/ people. At the Republican convention this year less than 10 percent of the delegates were people of color (an all time low). The rest were white Americans. This is not a true representation of America, and I think it reflects the fact that these folks are ones that are looking for ways to preserve an "old" lifestyle which is long gone – and to preserve it at the expense of others.
I would recommend you to use your definitions of the word "elite" carefully, especially, if you are voting for McCain. He is a person who was not an excellent student, does not go to church on a regular basis, comes from a very well off and rich background, and supports many policies that preserve the status quo and would continue to preserve inequality. All characteristics opposite of Obama. I am constantly amazed how the negative use of the word "elite" keeps coming back to portray Obama in this campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)