Rethinking Sacred Cows

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves

It would seem that we have completed a pretty discouraging week, politically speaking, not just with the issues that loom large like the Benghazi analysis showing systemic security failure, frightening ecological reports coming out of West Virginia or Obama’s seemingly sincere but worrisome NSA evaluation on the collection of metadata and possible abuse to privacy. While these issues could bring a resurrection of public dialogue and activism forward, they seem more likely to act as confirmation of our worst fears, do little to lighten the dampened January mood, and prove that if it’s not one thing, it’s another, most often, aspects of the same situation thwarting one another.

Because the answer to any problem is squarely within it, we don’t have far to go to find our solutions. All three of those issues reflect the long-term dissolution of straightforward policies and programs that kept the nation humming for decades, leaving us in need of not just a tune-up but a complete overhaul of our systems, ethics and national vision. Coming to consensus is our challenge, and these dynamics are worth a review, in light of the coming Aquarian energies that highlight the individual within the collective, and — hopefully — the individual’s influence upon the collective.

The polls show that an overwhelming number of Americans no longer believe that government is our friend, and thumbing through the recent history of such an opinion, few would argue. The slowly encroaching change from populism to plutocracy that began mid-century and finally tipped us over the edge under George W.’s leadership offers proof to all but that meager one percent of wealthy citizens — including the Koch and Wal-Mart dynasties — that the nation has lost its balance and seems unable to right itself. Who else to blame but the dreaded and dysfunctional government, gone remarkably tone-deaf and unresponsive?

I suppose it’s the human condition that comes under scrutiny when we discuss these issues, and I find it interesting that even the most nuanced of us still find some black/white issues with which to take exception. Black/white perception — a kind of adolescent “point and shoot” — seems to be our default, part of our basic primordial soup. Perhaps that’s why House Republicans filibustered the restoration of long-term unemployment benefits this week, and then defended their action to the disgusted public (and 1.3 million devastated citizens) by insisting that they acted “on principle.”

There’s nothing like the icy fingers of ‘principle’ running down our spine to snap our heart chakra shut — fully half, if not more, of our human intelligence — and create the granddaddy of all internal debates among the various voices in our overwhelmed brains. At least I hope that’s what happens for the majority of us, the rise of that moderating viewpoint that pulls at our absolutism. That pulls at our locked and loaded notions of black and white.

For instance, I think of the press coverage of Republican legislator, Susan Collins, defending her principled vote on this issue as a kind of hellish “selfie,” a psychic snapshot of the inner workings of a cold and self-serving philosophy, embraced by an individual stuck within the walls of her self-description, and thereby held accountable to defend it no matter how problematic a stand that might be. She might say the same of me, except, of course, I don’t get a six-figure salary or hold the good of the nation in my hand.

You might be surprised to know that Collins has my empathy (don’t hate me, I was born this way) and I suspect she may live to regret this position, if she’s teachable in her retirement. I understand the necessity to embrace the whole of a concept in order to take both a principled, as well as passionate and ultimately compassionate, stand, but that’s usually not the process we use to get where we’re going. We learn by doing, and sometimes it takes a long time to get the whole picture. Allow me to reach back into my personal archives for a story from my past.

In 1963 I was idealistic and passionate, full of piss and vinegar. Just graduated from high school in the San Francisco Bay Area, I was poised on going political with flowers in my hair. A college theatre major, I loved (and, underage, snuck into) comedy clubs and was particularly disturbed about the First Amendment attacks against Lenny Bruce for obscenity, though it was less his swearing than the entirety of his act that the Establishment found objectionable. Lenny made a pin-cushion of the highly repressed culture of the 1950s. He did it on purpose; he had a flag to wave, and there’s nothing authority likes to target more than someone skewering their sacred cows.

Given all those variables, and the gathering energy of the coming Pluto/Uranus opposition a few years off, it was a no brainer that I found myself participating in the Free Speech movement on the Berkeley campus. I not only wanted Lenny to have the right to say fuck when he wanted to, it was one of my own favorite words. If I didn’t find it obscene, I didn’t think the government should limit my use of it with repressive national policy. It was, I argued, only a word and one with infinite use as various parts of speech. At the time, it was shocking to some, funny to others.

This kind of attitude shook out to a vastly more open society in the ’70s that closed again on the heels of Reaganism and the AIDS crisis, but over the years things generally continued to reveal themselves despite the growing cries of the Moral Majority. We had a brief spell of revisited Calvinism during the Bush years, personified by Janet Jackson’s tit and various “F-bomb” (a term I consider obscenely insipid) cash penalties, but they appear to have subsided now.

One can only hope. Last night I laughed along with the audience when Sandra Bullock, accepting an award at the Critics Choice Awards, was interrupted by an erroneous snip of voiceover, looked perplexed and said, “What the fuck?” Lenny would be pleased.

However — and here’s where the next shoe drops — I have also found myself increasingly unhappy with the overt language used on prime time television, crude references that almost always have one toe in sexism, violence or both, and advertisements that seem more interested in titillation than in conceptualization. I’m still startled by what we allow our little kids to watch and hear and then feign ignorance over how they come by their lack of innocence and confused roles.

And, although I have absolutely no issues with early sex education, it’s immature and harmful relationship education they see on television, mirrored by those around them who haven’t thought their own relationships through long enough to effectively cut the crap. You know how it goes: if you want a child to be respectful of others, you model respect. If you want them sensitive, you model sensitivity.

And it’s then that I wonder, way back then, did I inadvertently help slip the latch of Pandora’s Box, contribute to the coarsening of our culture by supporting a four-letter word more familiar now to our young than the great quotes of antiquity or the soliloquies of Shakespeare? Life is like pin-ball. One thing leads to another and another and another before the ball comes back around for another play.

For instance, the House just selected a new head of the environmental portion of the Science Subcommittee, Rep. David Schweikert, a climate denier. He’s been vocal in targeting “Obama’s regulatory agenda,” saying, “Too often, this Administration has tried to bypass Congress and impose its will on the American people through regulatory fiat.” There’s that pinball again, smacking hard and ringing bells; who knows when it might stop. Hopefully, before it’s too late to restore efficacy to the EPA. And yes, in Schweikert’s world too much regulation is a big part of the problem in this nation.

Sadly, he is not the only climate change denier on the Science Subcommittee. I can only wonder at the profoundly cavalier, short-sighted perception that engenders this kind of thinking. It seems to me that here’s another example of whistling past the graveyard, concerned only with the perks and benefits that such an attitude provides big oil, special interests and — of course — Schweikert’s own campaign fund. I hate to imagine what a national policy like this would look like in 50 years. Part of the problem, I think, is that Schweikert lacks the imagination to think past the next contribution.

Another quandary for most of us is the growing power of the NSA. Acting on presidential authority today, Obama established a handful of checks and balances that were meant to reassure the public that this extensive security program would have adequate oversight in terms of privacy and overreach. Indicating that his speech was only an opening shot to further review, and pretty much satisfying no one, he punted a good deal of this issue back to the congressional theatre.

That has always been Obama’s Achilles heel, in my opinion: this intense desire for some sense of agreement within the governing body. Karma put him at the head of a nation deeply divided, in a period when agreement is hard to find.  It’s easy to see his warts but it’s going to be interesting, perhaps even surprising, I think, to discover where history ranks his pinball wizardry.

The President asks us to trust our national security agency to do the right thing, hardly a position to ease the concerns of any progressive, civil libertarian or Democratic Socialist, such as Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders. Interviewed on CNN shortly after Obama’s speech, he cited the changing technology and shifting security needs of the moment as a template for the need for strong transparency and community dialogue on this issue. He frets that this is too much power without oversight, the same concern most of us bring to this topic. “If Nixon had the resources available today,” Bernie told Wolf Blitzer, “think what he would have done.”

His worry, he said, was in the subtleties; that someone wanting to write an article on Osama bin Laden, for instance, Googling all the pertinent information and making up his or her own mind about what happened, would be less than forthcoming with their opinion, knowing the NSA was following every keystroke and conversation. He has an excellent point, one Lenny Bruce understood. One I vividly remember.

Still, this is our fight again and again, as long as it needs voices raised. Public opinion is what gave us this overhaul of NSA rules in the first place. Obama had spoken of his concerns over the program these last few years but nothing occurred until Snowden dropped the bombshell. And we must remember, even with almost a million of us turned into spies and data collectors, government is not our enemy. Unfettered capitalism, undisguised greed, less than just law, for-profit policy — all those are the enemy.

Those are our challenges, those need our attention: our thoughtful, nuanced, careful attention and activism. Nothing will change unless we make it happen, and we’ve seen how the politics of the moment can be impacted by public opinion. We’re seeing it now in our collective response to Snowden’s leaked information, pushing the conversation forward. And yes, there’s a lot working against us but that’s the lower nature of our species, running on group mind without taking stock of consequence, short-sightedly thwarting one another for personal or professional gain. At this juncture in our history, we can simply afford little patience for shallow opinion or simplistic attitudes.

Speaking of that, I was interested in the Supreme Court’s reviewing another of our sacred cows this season involving abortion, First Amendment rights and the individual’s right of privacy. The case — McCullen vs. Cloakley — was brought by pro-lifers who refer to themselves as “sidewalk counselors,” activists who block abortion clinic entrances in order to try to change the minds of those going in for procedures. Massachusetts established a 35-foot buffer zone around clinics in order to protect clients from being badgered, and mindful, I think, of a history of violent — even murderous — eruptions at these medical facilities.

The law became the target of a suit accusing Massachusetts of limiting free speech and prohibiting “peaceful conversation on a public sidewalk.” Buffer zones have been established in several states, supported by an earlier — and somewhat more liberal — High Court. In this case, however, the justices seem to feel that the 35-foot zone is too large. You will probably not be surprised that:

“… the court’s conservatives, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, said they thought such a law clearly violated the First Amendment. Several of the liberal justices commented that the 35-foot zone may be broader than needed.

This “is a counseling case, not a protest case,” Scalia insisted. “Surely, you could have a law against screaming and shouting within 35 feet. … These people want to speak quietly in a friendly manner.””

Cripes! Has anyone reading this watched FOX News? Do you remember a time when voices were low and intimate, when people weren’t shouting over one another, opinions insistent? Isn’t it a dead giveaway on other news shows who is a FOX contributor, given to interrupting and mugging for the camera? Can Scalia really believe that a movement whose practitioners are willing to murder clients and providers in a knee-jerk attempt to “prevent murder of the unborn,” are likely to be polite and friendly, faced with such a profound and emotional disagreement?

Clearly, we need less anachronism and more reality, and my fantasy is that it starts with the joy of watching Scalia retire, although I’m not holding my breath — but let me say, wincing slightly as I do — oh, FUCK yeah! Throw the bum out!

We can’t legislate morality. If we could, we might have more of it, or maybe not, depending on whose version of reality we’re listening to. But now is not the time to become faint-hearted. As absurd as it seems, retirement by a handful of senatorial Dem’s has put the Senate in danger of shifting red in 2014.

Can you imagine a completely Republican Congress? Do you remember our One Party nation, a.k.a. a portion of Bush’s first term along with the 2004-06 season? Do you remember Mitch McConnell’s recent threat to Harry Reid that he’d “regret” revamping rules for filibuster? Can you imagine … JEEZ! Never mind.

Let’s not imagine that, let’s just make sure it doesn’t happen! Let’s be very thoughtful of what we’re building in this new era, not just a response to climate emergency or frightening hits on democratic process. Let’s use our mental and emotional capacity to imagine the consequences of our decisions and make them mindfully; as fully minded as possible, not just thinking of our ourselves but working for the whole of the nation and humanity.

I think there’s no question that most of our sacred cows no longer need to be sacred — that our national policies must never be written or administered in secret — however, for every position we take, we pay a price. We need to make sure it’s worth paying, and so it must be considered in all its aspects, reviewed by the brain and thoroughly vetted through the heart. If we can begin to do that in our own lives, personally and politically, adding that sure and significant signature energy into the collective, the future will take care of itself.