Effectual Man, Ineffectual President

The Presidential Series – Jimmy Carter, the 39^th President of the United States
                                         Democrat, 1977-81

Let us learn together and laugh together and work together and pray together, confident that in the end we will triumph together in the right.

            President Jimmy Carter, Inaugural Address, 20 January 1977

In committing to do a series on various U.S. presidents, it might seem odd and ideologically backwards (considering my blog’s orientation) to begin with the 39^th president.  However, Jimmy Carter as president from 1977 until 1981 is one of our more interesting chief executives.  He was a one-term governor of a small southern state who promised to bring a more decent and morally guided focus to the job of the presidency.  His administration is equally considered one of unprecedented diplomatic success and an abject failure.  Love him or hate him, I’ve met few who are indifferent regarding President Jimmy Carter. 

Most presidents are products of events beyond their control – Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War; Grover Cleveland and the Panic of 1893; Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression; Jimmy Carter and…well…pick one.  Upon entering office, he swore to bring honesty and integrity back to the White House after the tumultuous and frequently illegal administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.  He said that if he were ever caught in a lie, he wanted to be escorted out of the White House immediately.  He was true to his roots as seen during the 1976 campaign when he would return to Georgia every weekend to teach Sunday School class at his home church.  He was different from any other president who took that mantle of responsibility.    

As president, he struggled with domestic issues.  The energy crisis that first perplexed Richard Nixon caused increased grumbling and discontent with a population waiting in line for gas.  He further aggravated the masses with a speech that lectured the Americans on their role in the crisis.  It did not go over well.  His “malaise speech” is one of the defining moments of his presidency.  Later, his presidency was challenged with a nuclear power plant meltdown on Three Mile Island in the middle of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania.  Much was made of his navy training as a nuclear engineer but his hands were largely tied as various experts desperately tried to determine what was wrong.  Bravely or foolhardily, he went to the nuclear power plant to speak with experts, giving the impression that things were under control.  A core meltdown was avoided but nuclear energy would suffer a setback it is only now crawling out from under.

Yet, it would be President Carter’s actions in foreign policy that would cement his legacy.  While he was instrumental in the historical Camp David Accords, bringing together Egypt and Israel, a point that cannot be dismissed lightly, and pushing through a divided Congress the Panama Canal treaty, he is remembered by historians as being weak when Iranian revolutionaries took 56 American hostages in Tehran and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan.  He attempted to negotiate with the Iranians but giving asylum to the former shah of Iran poisoned the negotiations.  It seemed Mr. Carter could not muster a response other than strongly-worded missives.  His one attempt at rescue was an overthought, overcomplicated plan that fell apart in the Iranian desert.  Threats and boycotts of Soviet action in Afghanistan had little impact.  The Russians were simply not listening. 

President Carter’s trouble was on display this past week during an interview with Charlie Rose.  Commenting on the situation in the Ukraine and responding to the question of whether President Putin would make a grab for eastern Ukraine, the soon 90-year-old President Carter said it would not happen.  “Mr. Putin said he would not move on eastern Ukraine.  Why would he lie?”  Nothing could better illustrate the president’s naïveté – an attitude that hampered his efforts as president.  His moral compass failed to see the duplicity in others.  Why would they lie?  Why wouldn’t they?  

Reading a list of his achievements prior to and after his presidency, it is easy to see what a decent individual Mr. Carter is. Indeed, if that alone were enough, he could have been one of our greatest presidents.  Yet like Woodrow Wilson, he thought his moral paradigm would influence others – it did as less scrupulous men took advantage of what they perceived as weakness.  Jimmy Carter was trounced in the 1980 campaign by Ronald Reagan and he soon left the lime light.  However, he did not stop working.  President Carter is a good man.  He was just an ineffectual president.

A Call for Simplicity

Throughout history, there have been those who have taught and sought a simpler life.  As our lives grow more complicated, comprehensive and hectic, the idea seems more attractive to me.  What I think of and what many others have embraced is a lifestyle that allows for a more authentic existence.  In addition, questions are being asked about our world today.  What does it mean to experience?  What is our purpose?  German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once proposed that our existence is not about enjoying ourselves.  He was only a more recent in a long line of thinkers who have questioned the society around them and offered another vision.  It is worth considering.   

Siddhartha Gautama was a Hindu prince who, upon seeing the world and its misery around his protected palace, decided there must be another way.  The Buddha, living between the 500s and 400s BCE, felt that the only way to remove suffering was to remove desire and want.  In keeping with philosophical and religious practices, the Buddha explored many ways to eliminate want, including an ascetic lifestyle.  The Buddha endured pain and deprivation to find a purer way of living.  For the Buddha, the reward of a simpler life includes the cleaning out of our mind and soul those things that are not important.  Even in our most treasured values in the U.S. – the concept of choice, for example – the Dalai Lama has warned that within it lie a paralysis and ultimately, a misery.   

Jesus of Nazareth also warned of the dangers found within the society.  Christianity has a long tradition of embracing the ascetic lifestyle and is based on Jesus’ admonishment of those who sought to hold on to luxuries and wealth.  Instead, he said that man’s role was to serve, not to be served.  He famously quipped that a wealthy man could no more easily enter the kingdom of heaven than a camel could pass through the eye of a needle.  Jesus attempted to convince Jews that they must return to the values of their ancestors.  Similarly, the Prophet Muhammad turned his back on his more wealth-oriented clan members in Mecca and worked to convince Arabs that the traditions that existed prior to the trading wealth of the Arabian Peninsula had been forgotten and needed to be embraced once more.  Today, when a Muslim prepares for the obligations of the Hajj in Mecca, they put aside their modern clothes in order to embrace the simple and humble ihram clothing.  What exists outside of Mecca is detrimental to a clear mind and heart. 

In 19^th-century United States, a philosophical movement known as New England transcendentalism emerged in response to the growing industrialization within the country.  At the head of this movement were thinkers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and Amos Bronson Alcott.  In explaining what Kant referred to as “transcendental philosophy,” writers like Thoreau spoke of the struggle that existed in the U.S. between the growing technology and a simpler concept of living, typified in his book, Walden.  Like de Tocqueville, Thoreau and others questioned what was being lost with the growth of industrialization.  In such writings is an emphasis on the true nature of living – that being the forces that surround us but with which we’ve lost contact as we surround ourselves by the trappings of our age.   

When I see people goofing off on their iPhones or me on my work-mandated computer, I wonder what is being lost, what skill is not being perfected as a result.  One of the reasons I enjoy nature so much is as an exercise of getting away from everything.  I do not want my phone or any other component of modern society.  I want to engage in the world around me without such things.  Each day, I seek ways to simplify my life.  With simplification, we grow healthier and cleaner – in mind and in heart.  Without complications, we grow stronger in our abilities and in our faith.  Early observers of Japan’s age of the samurai marveled at the daily commitment to occupation and community without distraction.  Perhaps it is easier to see that Wittgenstein was correct. 

Struggling With Fat

I’m fat.  It does not make me less of a person, as with anyone like me but there you are.  I work out often and can do various active and demanding things.  However, I’m fat.  I’m seeking a way to be less so.  However, it would not serve my purpose to deny the truth or otherwise, try to explain it in another way.  There has been a recent discussion on the notion of being fat and even a new concept – fat-shaming.  It is an interesting look at a culture trying to address something but trying to do so without specifically naming the problem or the condition.

I’ve hired a trainer and have recently tried to make a more serious effort to lose weight.  My problem is two-fold – I eat horribly unhealthy and delicious food and I don’t work out enough.  The problem clearly lies with me.  I was once healthy and in shape but that was some time ago.  So, I seek a way to drop the pounds for health and family reasons.  In short, I’d like to be with my family well into the future and at present, I’m one steak dinner away from a full coronary.  I have no excuse and there is little that anyone can say to tell me otherwise.  However, in the last year or so, there has been a growing furor over the nature of being fat and what to do about it.   

Were you aware there are a group of people who are trying to convince fat people that it is ok to be so?  They have attacked others for actions they call fat-shaming.  Most of what I’ve seen as examples of fat-shaming seems more about the perpetrator being a jerk.  What that has led to is a movement to have people proudly love and accept their size.  Even the word “fat” is starting to take on the connotation of other words directed at people for their race or ethnicity.  What is being accomplished here?  Are people mean?  Sure and for many other reasons in addition to seeing someone who is fat.  Are people well-intentionally ignorant?  Yes and particularly when confronted with something that is hurting someone they love.  So, if you take away the jerks and the well-meaning friends or family, what are we talking about?   

We need an honest and frank discussion about size in this country, without the hyperbole.  Calls for healthier living and weight levels are not calls for anorexia or bulimia or any other chase for unhealthy weight standards.  These aforementioned activists have even attacked those who are making general calls for healthier living, such as Maria Kang – the mother of three who seeks to encourage others to get in shape.  First Lady Michelle Obama said that her push for healthier lunch items in school is not about weight but about feeling better and healthier.  Sure but if we cannot even say the condition for fear of hurting feelings, we are not addressing the issues.   

When Amy Chua – Tiger Mom extraordinaire – called her daughter fat and lazy, I can’t imagine that young lady ending up in therapy wondering about how others see her and whether they respect her.  She was told upfront and there was never a doubt about it.  Compare that to the teen who has been told, “No, you are not fat.  You are beautiful and wonderful and people who don’t see that are not worth your time.”  Deep down, however, the teen knows they are fat but they are surrounded by people who won’t say it.  Is there any wonder that emotional issues develop?   

Part of the reaction by these activists is defensiveness.  Some of the reaction is from well-meaning people who worry about others being hurt.  However, you cannot fix a problem without first addressing it.  I know some will find my attitude callous or unsympathetic.  However, it is coming from one who is dealing with the same thing.  I’m worse than some and not nearly as bad as others.  Yet, the challenge is the same even if the scale is not.  Shakespeare said that a rose is still a rose no matter what you call it.  So it is with the concept of being fat.  It does not help to run from a name.

Spring Break Hiatus

Greetings everyone.  I'm on Spring Break and driving through the desert.  Not much internet interfacing but this is just a short little message to tell you that this weekend's posting is going to be great.  Much better than this one.  So, join me in a little rest and relaxation.  Kick your feet up, tell your boss you'll be back next week and do something fun. 

See you next week.

Ross

The Reign of the Heckler's Veto

Some years ago, historian Richard Pells wrote a book entitled Not Like Us: How Europeans Have Loved, Hated and Transformed American Culture Since World War II.  In it, Mr. Pells suggested that while many say, certainly in Europe, that the United States has had a disproportionate influence on the Old World, the facts suggest the opposite.  Over the last couple of decades, European jurists have protected the angry responders to provocative speech or action.  In American legal jargon, it is known as the Heckler’s Veto.  Instead of affirming the right to speech or thought, we side with those that are offended, sometimes to ridiculous lengths.  The examples from Europe have been headshaking but Americans have always felt they could smugly believe that it is not the way here.  According to the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this past week, that has changed.   

A couple of years ago, in a California high school, a group of Mexican-American students decided to make a public display over Cinco de Mayo.  In doing so, they hoisted a flag onto a tree in front of the school and celebrated underneath.  In a childish tit for tat, a couple of non-Hispanic students decided this would be a good day to wear shirts with American flags on it – in response to the festivities in front of the school.  Then, the Cinco de Mayo celebrants had an issue with this and threats were levied against the non-Hispanic students – in this case it was physical violence threatened.  The administration, fearing that a disturbance could quickly ensue and escalate, told the non-Hispanic students they had to take the shirts off or turn them inside-out.  Otherwise, they would be forced to leave the school.  Thus was struck the first blow on behalf of the Heckler’s Veto – the restriction of one person’s speech because of the potential disturbances caused by others. 

The parents of the American-flag wearing students sued and the case went before the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Typically, the 9^th Court is known for a rather liberal take on the Constitution.  Being based in California and covering territory that includes the Pacific Northwest, its ideological foundations are certainly in line with a segment of that region.  However, it seems their most recent ruling is more illogical than most.  The 9^th Court ruled that, in accordance to precedent set by the Supreme Court and other lower courts, schools have the right to do what is necessary to preserve order and the learning environment.   

Typically, this type of latitude by school administrators have been directed towards mandatory drug tests as seen in Board of Education v. Earls (2002) as well as searching student property (lockers) as seen in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985).  In 1988, the Court did decide in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier that newspaper stories about pregnant teens within the school (as well as sexual content) and students complaining about their parents were within the school’s purview to restrict.  However, one would have to surmise that the wearing of American flag emblazoned clothing hardly falls within the category of traditionally offensive or inappropriate material. 

Still, the jurists of the 9^th District have put a very strange twist on the traditional protection of speech, even in a traditionally restricted area like schools.  There is no Constitutional provision that says that speech can only be free if it does not offend.  Indeed, that is the most important speech to defend.  Presumably, this could go before the Supreme Court and hopefully, cooler and more measured judicial heads will prevail.  It clearly has not in California.  Europe has its own issues with this topic has they have, in some sectors, given up the fight and the importance of free speech and expression.  Should we give up ground on this issue, we will spend our last years on earth, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”