A Questionable Legacy

There has been so much going on in the news lately and no shortage of topics to discuss.  However, having a baby in the house has had a rather predictable impact on my writing.  That said, I would like to address the retirement of Jon Stewart.  All sorts of luminaries and dignitaries have spoken of his talent and ability to make others laugh and that cannot be denied.  They have talked about the groundbreaking nature of his program – The Daily Show.  That also cannot be denied.  However, what does his success mean?  That is my concern.

Jon Stewart once explained to Fox News that he is not to be taken seriously – he is a comic on the Comedy Central telling jokes about news-worthy events.  I could not agree more.  My concern is that his audience does not take the same view.  Recent polls suggest that a large number of viewers, mostly younger folks, used his show as their only source of news and information.  This is the first major concern I have about Mr. Stewart’s legacy and those who seek to continue the same.  He made no attempt at being comprehensive or objective; he made no attempt at providing context, historical or otherwise.  Yet, there are many Americans who were armed only with the information that Mr. Stewart and his crack team performed.  One might say that being mal-informed is better than being uninformed.  I would hate to live off the difference.

Second, much of what Mr. Stewart did was satire at various politicians, pundits and personalities.  An old tradition and one that he did quite well, this is not an attack on such tactics.  It is at times necessary to take pot shots at the popolo grasso in our nation’s capital.  However, with no other news digested by the viewer, one gets a horribly skewed view of our politicians, the jobs they are elected to do and the institutions in which they serve.  What is the cumulative effect of such slanted exposure?  When one considers that the growing number of young people who do not vote (yes, I know many other age groups don’t vote either) and their lack of engagement, what are the consequences for our Republic?  It is nothing good and such a thought should frighten those who care.

More than anything else, I’ve seen a growing number of people who cannot take the serious without the frivolous.  I’ve seen it with my students the most.  I assign them a serious topic to research and present to class and I have to make the caveat that they are not allowed to make light of the subject or goof off.  My students complain saying that the “fun” will make it interesting without considering that the inherent interest of a subject is interesting enough.  I’ve written before about the phenomena of education that must be “fun” or news presented as “entertainment.”  The question that I pose is – what is the impact of this approach?

This cultural trait is not to be laid at the feet of Jon Stewart.  He is a comedian doing his job and he did it quite well.  What is troubling is the importance that people placed in him – an importance he rejected often.  These people range from his viewers who used him as their sole source of news to those who sing his praises as something greater than he thought he should be considered.  As Neil Postman once said, the idea of being well-informed is not changing but what it means to be well-informed is.  I sometimes wonder if this is what it looked like when the Roman Empire began to collapse.

A Battle over History

Over the last several weeks, since the shooting in South Carolina, there has been increasing cries for the taking down of the Confederate battle flag.  This past week, members of both parties in the South Carolina legislature with support from people across racial and political lines lowered the Confederate battle flag for the last time.  One can argue for the meaning of the symbol and there are certainly different interpretations, but what must be agreed upon is that it was time.  Yet, this does not allow for a blanket Confederate application.   

Throughout American history, South Carolina has stood as one of the most obdurate states in the Union.  In 1828, it threatened to succeed over the issue of a tariff passed by the John Quincy Adams administration.  First in 1856 and then in 1860, it threatened to succeed over a possible election of a Republican.  When Abraham Lincoln won in 1860, South Carolina carried out its threat in the following month.  For over a century, the state has been defiant over federal encroachment.  So, it is fitting that it is only South Carolina that should determine when to lower the flag. 

However, my stance on the flag does not extend to all things Confederate.  Recently, Baltimore officials and those throughout the state are having a conversation about removing all symbols and references to the Confederacy, including statues and other memorials dedicated to Confederate soldiers and leaders.  As a history teacher, I have a particular problem with this for a couple of reasons.

One, the monuments are to the fallen; those considered by the U.S. government as veterans.  The idea that some officials, including the embattled mayor of Baltimore, would do away with the dedication to those who fell during the Civil War is shocking and an affront.  Our monuments do not take into account the personal beliefs of those honored – merely considering their dedication and willingness to sacrifice for their country.  Such measures are unacceptable and should outrage Americans. People want to get rid of a statue of Robert E. Lee – why?  Because he fought with a belief in slavery?  So did some in the North.  The North was not a paragon of racial equality and harmony.  Should we get rid of those statues and monuments as well?

Two, this is an attack on history.  One cannot wipe away the history of an era simply because one does not like it.  History is replete with those who seek to alter or abolish history and typically, such people are numbered as some of the worst dictators and tyrants.  What is being considered here sets an abhorrent precedent that leaves history to the whims of fancy.  In their minds, Baltimore officials may think they are striking a blow against prejudice and hatred but what they are actually doing is robbing a people of a history that is never perfect and never pure.  History’s “humanness” is in its imperfection, its constant struggle to get things right.  To judge the past by the standards of the present is to write off much of our past.

The battle flag is a symbol resurrected during the mid-20^th century to represent not the South but the worst of its character.  The abolition of the flag from public buildings and events is right.  The wish to alter or wipe out the past by taking down statues and monuments to those who served and died for the South is ridiculous.  Once a group of people take it upon themselves to edit that history which they find objectionable, we are indeed in dangerous territory.  We risk losing ourselves when we lose our history.

A Fight for Knowledge

In all the talk about the Muslim world and the tacit approval by some of more extremist elements, there is something missing – the intellectual and educational past of its decedents. When one considers the achievements made by Muslims, it is a shocking concept that one group proclaiming the tenets of Islam, the Shabab militants in Kenya, should target teachers and children to shut down schools. Yet, this is what the people of Kenya are facing. Sadly, and not just Kenya, centers of education are being attacked under the unfounded idea that somehow such things are against God.

Muhammad, he who founded the Islamic faith, was a worldly man. He had traveled throughout the region with his uncle, a merchant. He knew of other people and indeed, his knowledge of other people and their culture helped in the spread of his nascent faith. From the very beginning, a practical and worldly education propelled Islam forward, into the world of the peripatetic arena of the Bedouin, into the ancient lands of the Fertile Crescent to the dusty lands of North Africa and into the Iberian Peninsula. It latched on to other, older cultures, absorbing its history and knowledge and in doing so, spreading the faith and expanding its borders into Persia and India.

Early Muslim scholars rescued the works of the Romans and Greeks, preserving them for generations to come at a time when the Europeans had denigrated into barbarism. Such intellectual achievements were also seen with early mathematicians such as Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, scientists such as Abu Nasr al-Farabi and Thabit ibn Qurra, historians like Ibn Battuta and Ibn Khaldun, philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and physicians like Ibn Al-Baitar and Ibn Zuhr.

We now move forward nearly millennia, where thugs in the name of Allah are attacking schools and killing teachers and students.  It is a level and focus of violence that can only be described as a type of mass psychosis.  Those who encourage and facilitate education in the Muslim world or Dar al-Salam are fighting an uphill battle.  On some level, this has to be a low point from which Muslim culture must rebound and take, once more, its place among the world’s great intellectual centers.  It has universities and scholars but few whose voice extends throughout the region and beyond.

As for Kenyan schoolchildren and teachers, Shabab is wreaking havoc as teachers are fearful to resume their duties and soon-to-be graduating students have little to no instruction for their preparation with exams.  These exams are vital for their placement in universities.  Especially in the northeast, with its proximity to Somalia (the home territory of the Shabab), officials in Nairobi are concerned for the future of the region.  The terrorist attack at the university in Garissa last year as well as the attack on a bus load of mostly teachers heading home for Christmas has brought the idea of education to the fore. 

County governments have little desirable options in trying to answer the needs of their students and Nairobi searches for answers that are more affordable than placing armed units of soldiers at every school and school function.  Of course, other countries could offer help but the African Union has a role to play here if it can agree to a course of action.  Nairobi might say that it is unwilling to have outsiders play the role of driving out other outsiders but if it cannot come up with its own answers, what is the alternative?    

Addressing Baltimore

I’ve been debating how and in what vein to write about my hometown of Baltimore.  The fact that the city I love now belongs to a rather nefarious alumni of cities with civil and social unrest surrounding the death of a black man in police custody is enough to make me shake my head.  As I watched the events of a week ago today, I felt sick to my stomach.  I felt for the family of the young man who died and felt angry at the people who took it as a moment of opportunism.  There is much that needs to be addressed in Baltimore and there is plenty of blame to go around.

Issue 1 – Jurisprudence.  The six police officers who have been charged in the death of Freddy Gray need a fair trial.  I understand the demands of justice but what will happen if justice as the protestors sees it is not realized?  If, in their hearts, the protestors are demanding a conviction, that is not justice but a railroading the likes of which the black community have dealt with throughout their history.  In order for justice to be served, the police officers need a fair hearing, a legitimate legal counsel and an honest deliberation by the jury – and the Baltimore community must accept it. 

Issue 2 – The race paradigm.  If the six police officers’ indicted are indeed found to be responsible, protestors need to rethink how this issue is being characterized.  The recent incidents of police officers and young black men have been found to have as much to do with idiocy and incompetence as racism.  Yet, the death of Mr. Gray was initially framed as a race issue.  How will it be portrayed now that half of the accused officers are black?  The race issue was used to inflame the situation into the inferno of Monday and if racism is not a part of it, it needs to be removed from the dialogue so that a more productive, less toxic conversation can be held. 

Issue 3 – The faults.  Various black community leaders in Baltimore and interested observers have suggested that this incident needs to be a catalyst towards permanent change and reform.  I whole heartedly agree.  However, changes are required all around.  The police department certainly needs to get its house in order if the charges prove to be accurate.  City officials need to be more consistent in how it helps those in need and how it provides the means of citizens to help themselves.  The black community also needs to change what it is doing in the name of civil rights.  One can’t look at the last forty years and declare it is entirely the government’s problem.  The black community has soul searching to do in addressing problems surrounding the family, community and personal responsibility. 

Issue 4 – The perception problem.  In recent days, there has been a conversation (more a diatribe) on the characterization of the looters and rioters.  Some officials and community leaders have lashed out over the term “thugs” being used about those in question.  I’ve mentioned in other forums that those who cannot even honestly discuss an issue are not likely to solve it.  One could call it ballet but it comes down to the same thing – there needs to be a blunt and direct conversation over what happened and how to move on from here.  The word thug is no more racist than door but has only taken on those dimensions because of the characterization of young black men and women taking part in destroying their own block, neighborhood and city.  Stop trying to find ways of being offended and start helping the situation.  I said start because this tactic is helping no one. 

I know the city of Baltimore will rebound from this.  Our city is more than what one sees on The Wire or on the evening news.  There are beautiful neighborhoods, communities, culture, food, history and heritage.  The city is filled with good people, many of whom were out the day after the riots cleaning up and reclaiming.  However, remarks that much is left be done are absolutely right.  There must be honest efforts to ensure everyone has the chance to do well.  Baltimore has had rough periods in its history before.  It will need to rise again as worthy of the anguish that has poured out of people the last week.  Still, to paraphrase a famous line, there is nothing wrong with Baltimore that cannot be fixed with what is right about Baltimore.      

The Democratic Albatross

I teach a group of young people who are a mixed bag of intentions.  Some are really nice but there is another group who pretend to be nice or more accurately, are nice because of the social advantages it heaps on them.  They are ticking boxes that will ensure their success – good grades, positive relationships with teachers and a healthy amount of extracurricular activities and volunteerism.  I’m reminded of those students when I see and hear Hillary Rodham Clinton.  She is one of the most well-known and visible Democratic and ipso facto the favorite for the Democratic nominee.  It is just one of the many reasons why she should not occupy the White House.

Her popularity, to be frank, has always been a bit puzzling to me.  Every time I see her interacting with the hoi polloi, it always seems contrived and forced.  There are certainly politicians who have a genuine connection with those they represent but not Hillary Rodham Clinton.  With the former secretary, perception does not match up with reality.  She is a feminist poster child who nevertheless stood by a serial Lothario.  She is a self-proclaimed and noted hawk whose time as Secretary of State was marked by inaction and the proliferation of terrorism and territorial ambitions.  She has blasted Republicans in the past for improprieties while she is currently embroiled in a series of illegalities that would derail most candidacies. 

In launching her 2016 bid, her campaign began with a video that included every ethnic group and disadvantaged persona that one could incorporate.  So blatant was her attempt at inclusiveness, it came across has calculated and cynical.  Then, there is the baggage of the name.  Had her husband not been an unabashed cavorter, Bill Clinton’s time in office would have been seen as the most successful Democratic presidential term since Franklin D. Roosevelt.  As it is, the former president has been marginalized and pushed to the peripheral by every significant Democrat (read, candidate) since 2000.  Ms. Clinton now stands as a continuation of that legacy and Democrats must be scratching their heads, wishing for someone else.

Are there other Democrats out there that could legitimately challenge Ms. Clinton?  The former Maryland governor Martin O’Mally has expressed interest in the brass ring.  The hunky former governor certainly looks like presidential material but he’s received very little attention.  There is always Vice President Biden but there cannot be anyone in the Democratic Party that takes that candidacy seriously.  A serious candidate could be former Virginia Senator Jim Webb who has the backstory (former Marine officer turned politician and diplomat) and the toughness that could challenge Ms. Clinton.  However, in the end, only the former First Lady is being discussed and covered…ad nauseam. 

So, as she sets out on her “common folks” tour, her lack of the common touch grows daily.  Yet, she is still the presumptive favorite and will be talked about and exalted on a daily basis in the press.  In short, she is not going anywhere – hopefully, that prediction extends to the White House.  The Republicans have a great chance to make a powerful case against the former First Lady.  I hope they are disciplined enough to make it.

The Return of the Boys of Summer

With the advent of the 2015 baseball season at hand, I would like to share a quote by the baseball philosopher George Will on the position of baseball as a true democracy's sport.

Baseball suits the character of this democratic nation. Democracy is government by persuasion. That means it requires patience. That means it involves a lot of compromise. Democracy is the slow politics of the half-loaf. Baseball is the game of the long season, where small, incremental differences decide who wins and who loses particular games, series, seasons. In baseball, you know going to the ballpark that the chances are you may win, but you also may lose; there's no certainty, no given. You know when a season starts that the best team is going to get beaten a third of the time, the worst team's gonna win a third of the time. The argument over 162 games: that middle third. So it's a game that you can't like if winning's everything. And democracy's that way too.

My friends may disagree but as a wise man once said, "Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas."

The New Chamberlain

At the onset of President Obama’s term in office, there seemed a desire to deal with Iran.  Throughout his presidency, Mr. Obama has sought a deal with the totalitarian state to inhibit through diplomacy its nuclear ambitions.  This might be seen as a continuation of the type of diplomacy that began under President Nixon to limit our adversaries’ nuclear capabilities.  However, previous agreements have been done from a position of strength.  The president, so anxious to get any deal done, has created the opposite and the Iranians are better for it.

For the Iranians, the biggest hurdle to overcome is the elimination of international sanctions that have been in place for so long that the Iranian economy’s decline is in an inverse relationship with civil unrest.  The Iranian leadership, exhibiting a dictatorial nature that they once bemoaned personified in the Shah, is cracking down on dissent while trying to turn the corner on their own Great Depression. 

Just as the Iranian government was left grasping for answers, they received a bit of salvation in a rather obliging deal with the U.S.  The fact that the Iranians are praising the deal while threatening to build nuclear weapons if anyone backs out should give the powers that be pause.  The Israelis are particular concern because their relationship with Iran is not diplomatic but pragmatic.  It is they who stand to face obliteration at the hands of a nuclear Iran.  While the president opines rhetorically, the Israelis are faced with a very real problem.  For Prime Minister Netanyahu, it is not a personal ambition but a national one given the results of recent elections that returned him to power.

The blithe sanguinity with which the president sees Iran’s compliance is thankfully not shared by the Congress.  The ball is now in their court to put some teeth back into this deal or nix it altogether.  Still, while Congress can frame the approach, it still lies with the president to act on it and Mr. Obama does not seem keen to do so.  With a naïveté reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter with the Russians and President Woodrow Wilson with the European Powers, President Obama is banking his entire approach on the “will of good men” in Iran.  Never mind that Iran has done nothing to give the impression that such men exist within its government, the president’s approach continues to hold the faith. 

I must admit that I admired initially the president’s willingness to speak to Iran.  He is right that nothing can be achieved without communication.  However, cock-eyed optimism is no way to deal with such an adversary.  There must be iron in our words and a willingness to lower the hammer if our interests are ignored.  We have taken on the responsibility to negotiate and the worst thing that we can do is to disregard our commitment to friends and regional peace by settling for anything at any price.  The president, in a way not unlike pre-World War II British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, has done just that.