Category: American Affairs

THE LOYAL OPPOSITION

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 3 Comments

One of the astonishing by-products of the Quaker movement was the two-party system.

Before the Quaker leadership presented its historic Peace Testimony to King Charles II in 1661, a political faction was supported by arms – or an army of its own. It’s something we’re still seeing in conflicts around the globe.

Quakers, however, proclaimed:

We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever. And this is our testimony to the whole world. The spirit of Christ, by which we are guided, is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move into it, and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight any war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world.

Quite simply, without removing themselves from political and social revolution, Friends avowed to do so on the basis of argument and example, rather than brute force and violence. They would suffer another two decades of fierce persecution before seeing their vision upheld.

What they created was the possibility of a loyal opposition – one that would press for change and speak out for the oppressed, the way the prophets did in the history of the Hebrew Bible – while still respecting the office of existing authority. To work, moreover, it had to be a two-way street, as the Bible stories also demonstrate.

What seems to have happened in recent decades in the larger American political scene is the loss of that mutual respect, despite differences. Any loyalty to the larger good is lost in the process.

We need to get back to that two-party foundation. Or Woodpecker will keep pounding.

AND NOW WE’RE BACK TO A VALUES ISSUE

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 1 Comment

Anyone else amused that Ted Cruz is sticking a “New York values” label on Donald Trump?

Or should we say trying to stick a label?

After all, Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is an investment manager at Goldman Sachs – and you don’t get much more “New York values” than that. By the way, should we ask who’s paying the bills in the Cruz household?

Yes, we know how New Yorkers are often stereotyped in much of the rest of the country – and as someone who twice lived Upstate, I could add stories about how much the rest of New York state can differ from what was often called The City – but I have to acknowledge Cruz’ courage in writing off a big state in a bid for support elsewhere.

Maybe he just figured Trump has The City and Empire State all wrapped up anyway.

YES, IT’S A WEIRD IMPRESSION

~ Jnana Hodson ~ Leave a comment

A flash the other morning has me wondering. Donald Trump as a … Jezebel?

Yes, Jez was a woman married to a spineless king. And in her excesses she led Ahab’s kingdom astray. Or more accurately, God’s.

It was all glitzy seduction and court intrigue, of course, and she was the outsider taking over. Most of the prophets went silent, somewhat like the criticism we’re not hearing today. For those who saw clearly, this initiated a time of terror.

As for the gender thing, we might ask if any previous presidential candidate paid so much attention to the rivals’ hairstyles or dress. Aren’t there more serious issues? And the bitchy tone? Is everyone else really that cowed?

Don’t know how far to take the comparison, other than throw it in play for discussion. Your turn!

BRAGGING IN THE DARK

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 1 Comment

A recent brag by Marco Rubio’s camp that he nearly killed “Obamacare” could just have a boomerang effect. Yes, I know that many Republicans hate the Affordable Care Act, but the reality remains that it’s the only way for many Americans to obtain medical care.

If you have a child with a “preexisting condition” like asthma or a defective heart, you know the alternative is a death sentence. If you undergo surgery and see what the bill would be without insurance coverage – thousands of dollars more – you get a clue of the unjust disadvantage you’d be at. Bankruptcy, as your likely fate. (There goes the house. And the American dream.)

It’s not that the critics are presenting a better proposal for affordable health care. They keep ignoring the issue, actually. It wouldn’t take much for many Americans to awaken to an argument that Rubio nearly killed health care. Kinda sounds like a Neanderthal or Hun.

Saying what you stand against doesn’t necessarily tell us what you stand for. The question remains.

NATURALLY UNFIT FOR THE WHITE HOUSE?

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 4 Comments

After all of the delusional accusations about Obama’s citizenship and religion, hearing charges that Ted Cruz is not a “natural born” American and thus Constitutionally barred from the presidency comes as an ironic twist. This one might actually have legs, factually speaking.

We don’t expect him to quit that easily, of course. So this could get interesting, especially if the natives get restless.

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION

~ Jnana Hodson ~ Leave a comment

Noticing the first few lawn signs for a particular presidential hopeful the other day demanded a second look.

Yes, they were brand new. Sparkling. So who was endorsing him?

Nobody, apparently. Only his staff.

Years ago I learned to pay attention to just where the roadside signs were being planted. If they’re popping up on people’s lawns, you can assume some support for the candidate. But placed on public right of way or at intersections or uninhabited stretches of roadway, it’s only somebody doing a job. (In this case, the signs were in front of the parking lot of an abandoned church. So much for separation of church and state?)

Some of us have learned not to be fooled. And some of us have learned to seriously consider a candidate, based on the lawns where their names are appearing.

CAN ONE CANDIDATE REALLY DICTATE THE NEWS?

~ Jnana Hodson ~ Leave a comment

As we’ve noted, Donald Trump has a very thin skin. Add to that his obsession with, well, himself as he imagines himself, brooking no dissension. It’s said he dictates the position of television cameras at public events to enhance the likelihood of only flattering images.

And now that the New Hampshire Union Leader has endorsed Chris Christie in the Republican presidential primary, Trump is taking credit for getting the state’s largest newspaper dumped from participating in an upcoming debate in its home city. The ABC network, it appears, simply caved in to the candidate’s demands. (For the record, it’s not the first. Let’s hope, though, it’s the last.)

Perhaps as part of his shallow understanding of the workings of the public sphere, Trump apparently cannot separate the news gathering and reporting side of journalism from the opinions expressed in its editorial columns. Now, it seems, neither can ABC News, which puts its own credibility in question. More to the point, where does the network separate news from entertainment? Is it as soft and spineless as Trump just accused the American public of being?

Where’s the truth in all of Trump’s image-building? Who’s to separate the reality before us from an increasingly weird fiction? Is it going to be left to the legions of National Football League fans he’s just insulted? Or is the court jester really in line for his own coronation?

One way to take down a bully, as we recall, is for everyone to pile on together. So who will take the first move – and who will be second? After that, you can imagine what happens. Right?

WHY I’M MORE OR LESS IN FAVOR OF A BALANCED-BUDGET AMENDMENT

~ Jnana Hodson ~ Leave a comment

Those of us on the peacemaking side of armaments debates have usually resisted calls that would require a balanced budget, usually because of our concerns about what would happen to the poor and oppressed during economic downturns. It’s not that we’re against a balanced budget, mind you – many of us would favor a budget surplus and reserves.

Curiously, however, those who have been most vocal in their demands for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget have also proclaimed strong support for large military outlays.

Here’s their unintentional bind: Some historians and economists have noted that without the ability to borrow money, America would never have been able to enter into armed conflict. Perhaps that’s universally true among nations, not just mine.

If that’s the case, perhaps we have our lines tangled. Would a balanced-budget requirement have prevented the U.S. buildup in Vietnam as well as both wars in Iraq?

Remember, too, we were on track to eliminate the federal deficit before 9/11 overturned everything.

The war costs were, in effect, put on a national credit card the hawks were never willing to pay off.

Is this a game we’re willing to play – a kind of chicken? (No pun intended.)

The concept certainly thickens the plot, even before we get to name-calling.

WHAT GAME? WHAT TEAM?

~ Jnana Hodson ~ Leave a comment

A bit of news over coffee came as a question. “Did you know Bill Clinton was in town yesterday?”

No, I had no idea. Turns out it was an unannounced stop at his wife’s campaign headquarters about a mile from our house. Fire up the troops. Support the loyalists. Show some spirit. A smart move between appearances elsewhere in the state that day.

It’s also the sort of thing that can make the New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary a lively affair. You just might be greeted by one of the White House hopefuls in your favorite diner or convenience store. You just might ask a question that generates headlines. Or you might accept a campaign button or bumper sticker or sign up to help. It’s all face-to-face, even hand-to-hand connection. You get a real-life measure of the person.

Usually, we’re aflutter in action this close to the actual voting. At least Hillary and Bernie are in traditional mode, but the Republican side is utterly baffling. I’m still not seeing much in the way of ground action. Very few bumper stickers or lawn signs, for one thing. No downtown rallies with enthusiasts waving “totem poles” of posters. No canvassers going door to door, either. Just what’s going on? Where’s the enthusiasm? The real enthusiasm?

My guess is the managers think they can do it all with television clips, mailings, radio advertising, and the like. Things they can, uh, manage. No surprises. And nothing personal.

Think of watching a professional football or baseball game and noticing there are no fans in the stands. No cheering or booing, for that matter. It would be deadly dull. And then, a moment later, realizing there are no live figures on the field, either. It’s all for appearances. Now, to the ads. The endless ads. At some point, you need a product — the one you tuned in to view.

There are good reasons to play the actual games rather than rely on the stats (or, in the political realm, rely on surveys). Upsets and unpredictable flashes make the day. The mouth-running coach may be good for building anticipation, but the quiet, calculating rival may deflate all that pregame hype and bombast. So everyone shows up for the contest. Or that’s what I’d expect.

TRUMPETS OF THE COMING STORM

~ Jnana Hodson ~ Leave a comment

My title is drawn from a line in John Greenleaf Whittier’s “The Last Walk in Autumn, XXV,” which echoes “blow the trumpet” in Ezekiel 33:3 “and the watchman cried” of 2 Samuel 18:25, followed by “I saw a great tumult, but I knew not what it was” in verse 29.

There were thunders and lightnings,
and a thick cloud upon the mount,
and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud;
so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.
– Exodus 19:17

We, too, live in a tumultuous time, but in the crush of news and entertainment, the trumpets are muted. Prophets are neglected, and analysts and vapid pundits hold forth in their stead. Perhaps the rappers are too angry or too monotonous to cut through. The wheels spin and spin without a destination.

For my part, acknowledging Whittier fits my own turns in this writing. While serious American poetry typically turns away from anything touching on religious faith or political awareness (the exceptions are telling), both have been central to my life. Like Whittier – and Whitman, a step removed – Quaker practice has shaped my vision and voice. Nor is true faith distanced from social conditions. Closer to home, Whittier was a frequent visitor to the room where I worship weekly, and his parents married from the bench where I sit. To read Whittier with any appreciation in today’s literary perspective, though, I find I must break the cloying monotony of his simple rhyme schemes – recasting the lines will usually do the trick. What I then find is a surprising freshness within each line, a much more vigorous reach than is typical for the period. We forget that Whittier is the springboard for Robert Frost and all who follow in that vein. We also forget that Whittier was essentially a topical poet, immersed in the political and economic struggles of his time. Even Snowbound, for all of its seeming nostalgia, is an acknowledgment of technological advance and its impact.

Here, then, begins my cry.