Safety in “Big Daddy’s” Shadow?
By Dan Tow • Sep 8th, 2008 • Category: Politics, Worth A Second Look • 22 CommentsI couldn’t resist a few remarks on my impressions of the recent American nominating convention for the Republican Party, nominating John McCain for their candidate. I’ll be relatively brief, for a change. American presidential nominating conventions have changed over my lifetime. In the 1960s and earlier, these conventions were news-making, business-like affairs, where important party business was conducted, including the vital business of choosing a presidential candidate for the party. Since then, the candidate is almost invariably decided (by votes in primaries, mainly) long before the conventions, and, in the age of television, the parties have figured out that the most important function, for them, of the convention is to serve as a very long, free political advertisement for their already-chosen candidate. With very high-priced, carefully-selected experts working hard behind the scenes, virtually every moment of these conventions is now centrally scripted in advance to convey precisely the ideas that the experts have calculated will maximize votes for their candidate. The most interesting thing to see at these conventions, therefore, is what ideas these experts are trying to feed us. (Knowing that these ideas are being fed to us is vital; if we are conscious of what is going on, we can consciously decide whether the ideas are true or false, and how much they should influence our votes, rather than just reacting emotionally to these ideas, and casting our votes emotionally, which is surely what the weaker candidate would prefer!)
So, I watched the Republican convention with careful attention to the emotional message being so carefully conveyed. Overwhelmingly, the result was a sense of déjà vu – a sense that I had experienced something similar, before. The scene the convention reminded me of, again and again, was from early childhood, an argument between 4-year-olds, each shouting, “My daddy can beat up your daddy!” As a father of a 6-year-old son, and an 11-year-old daughter, I’m still reminded regularly of what I imagine is a universal need of young children, an emotional need to feel physically safe, and I am often reminded by events that it is commonly the father’s role to help his children feel safe in his shadow. I don’t need to beat up anyone else’s daddy to fill this role, but I am conscious that it clearly pleases my 6-year-old son that I am taller than most, and that he enjoys imagining that I am in better physical shape than I really am, ready to win a fight in his defense, if he was threatened.
Sadly, pathetically, even, it seems that the big brains behind the McCain presidential campaign have decided that deep down most American voters are still like young children, still very much in need of a “big daddy” with a big shadow they can feel safe beneath. The consistent emotional message that I sensed at the forefront of almost every minute of the Republican convention was that Americans live in a scary world, a world full of bad, scary men (terrorists) who want to hurt them, and John McCain is exactly the tough, warrior daddy we need, who loves us and who will protect us at any cost, including, if necessary, costs that might not be so nice for innocent people who don’t happen to be American.
In most of the world, I realize, the extended family has high importance, and older members of the extended family carry traditional authority even over adults. In the American culture, on the other hand, adults are expected to be autonomous; as adults, we love our extended family, parents, aunts, uncles, older brothers, et cetera, but our culture encourages us to live independently of them as adults, not under their authority or protection. I have no problem with traditional extended families, though – each culture undoubtedly has its advantages and strengths, so I don’t have an argument, there. Instead, I want to focus only on political father figures, and whether grown adults should seek fatherly protection from a political leader, and whether that protection ought to look like a “big daddy” who can “beat up your daddy.”
My first problem with the Republican argument is that the terrorist threat is not nearly so dangerous (to Americans) as the Republicans would apparently like us to believe! Even if there was a 9/11-scale attack every year, far more Americans would die yearly in automobile accidents than in terrorist attacks, and the deaths to terrorism would never begin to approach losses we’ve endured in many past wars. Now of course I don’t want more 9/11-scale attacks – those would be tragic, indeed – my point is that we have endured far worse, and we don’t have to let fear rule our lives and distort our ability to make rational decisions, or our will to hold to our principles. The very name “terrorists” clearly shows that the entire goal of terrorists is to terrify those they hate, so the Republican message of cowering fear is precisely playing into the terrorists’ hands!
My second problem with the Republican argument is that there are very real dangers that are far worse than the terrorist threat, but these dangers are being largely ignored by the Republicans, largely owing to misguided focus on the terrorist danger. Lack of adequate health care annually kills vastly more Americans than violence does or probably ever will. By every measure, Americans outspend the rest of the world on health care, yet the same measures clearly show we live shorter, less healthy lives than the rest of the developed world, getting less for our money. In the longer term, climate change and environmental degradation, with its enormous, unpredictable potential effects, may kill millions, may even threaten our extinction. This threat, though, the Republicans claim, calls only for “more study,” and “voluntary measures” for the foreseeable future (more on this in a future article). Apparently, unless we have actual proof that inaction on climate change will cause vast death, we mustn’t do anything yet that might actually hurt the economy. Perhaps by the time proof is possible, it will be too late to undo the damage, but, well, at least we didn’t hurt the economy (in the short run) unnecessarily! (Of course, in the long run, climate change can (and likely will) hurt the economy (never mind the deaths) vastly more than timely action would have hurt it!)
My third problem with the Republican argument is with the idea that those terrorist dangers, even assuming they are as great and important as the Republicans claim, require safety under a presidential “big daddy” shadow. For the sake of argument, let’s go ahead and assume that the world really is as dangerous as they say, and the big dangers really are from those nasty terrorists. Does it follow that we need a big, tough daddy in the president’s office to give us protection? Even in families, are big, tough daddies a child’s best and only source of protection? Well, a child’s instincts might say so, but in today’s world, little but wise daddies (and mommies, for that matter!) can offer just as much safety, or more, than tough daddies offer! A wise parent uses his or her head to keep children out of danger in the first place, making the need for a physical defense much less likely. Even in the most dangerous times, safety from a presidential “daddy” is no different – there is far more safety in a president that will use his or her head than one who is just the biggest tough guy! The waste of military resources in Iraq makes us weaker against real threats current and future elsewhere! Give me a leader (not a daddy) who leads with his head! Give me a leader more interested in avoiding an unnecessary fight than in provoking more fights! Give me a leader with enough subtlety to avoid responding to any attack with counter-attack, without regard even to whether the counter-attack is against the right people, or whether the counterattack makes us any safer! Give me President Barack Obama!
Trackback URL
|
|
|
Republicans are primarily selling a stale fantasy in the new packing of Pallin.
A brainy article, as usual. And it was nice to have a direct fresh insight from an American streets.
From what I gather from different websites, it seems that almost all of the Americans feel that America is on the wrong track, but then I notice a sharp sway in public opinion every day with the new news item, and now this young hockey mom seemingly has restored the McCain’s dwindling chances.
It seems that both Obama-Biden and McCain-Pallin have copy-righted the word “change”. The change is more awaited by rest of the world than the Americans.
Americans are not idiots, but they are an extremely gullible lot and can easily be fooled by fear, misinformation, mass panic, and manipulated hysteria.
I particularly enjoyed your parental analogy of Daddy. Very nice, and very interesting.
I like to deal with the ‘devils’ I know than the ones I don’t. Your this Mr ‘Goodguy’ Obama doesn’t sound too reassuring for us in Pakistan (when you think about his recent snarls, he certainly has
‘intimidated’ me!) let us, the Pakistanis, look at this issue from our perspective.
I agree with Aftab Alam, that Obama is very “intimidating”. In my opinion, he would go too far to prove to the his media that he is not a Muslim, and for that he he would pursue the hottest pursuit available in our territory.
Are you crazy or what? Accidents are the natural causes, whereas 9/11 incidents are attacks on the American sovereignty and for whatever we stand for. Muslim Obama coupled with gaffe Biden are the surefire ticket to self-defeating America.
For us Pakistanis, it makes no difference as who becomes your president, because your policies and priorities are shaped by the Jewish lobby controlled by Free Masons.
Come on, Mr Sutherland, must you prove over and over and over again that you have chronic problem with the adjective ‘Muslim’ and the noun ‘Islam’. In your weltanschaung, an unacceptable Obama just can’t be anything else but ‘Muslim’; have you altered, or shall I say ‘corrected’, (personally in your own handwriting) the dictionary definition for : Bad / Undesireable / Evil / etcetra. for Muslim? Have you?
With regards to Mr. Sutherland’s remarks, I can only imagine that the wisest friends of John McCain would quote the old American saying, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?” With regards to myself, I suppose I myself would say, “With enemies like these, who needs friends?” With regards to TPS, I would say that self-refuting, self-defeating comments like these are one of the best arguments for continuing your wise policy of leaving unfiltered even the most absurd comments. I suppose to be fair, Mr. Sutherland did make a small and true point about the difference between accidents and attacks, with attacks on our sovereignty demanding some sort of response, but, Mr. Sutherland, did I ever *say* that we shouldn’t respond to attacks such as 9/11? No, I’m pretty sure what I said, and what Mr. Obama says, is that we should not respond *unwisely*, in ways that do ourselves and others more harm than good, nor in ways that play into the hands of our attackers!
Mr. Jamaluddin,
Please see http://www.pakspectator.com/coping-with-limits-to-control-in-politics-life-and-bridge/
and http://www.pakspectator.com/american-control/ - especially the second-to-last paragraph.
Dr. Ayesha and Mr. Aftab,
I’m sorry to hear that Obama presents a frightening picture. I suppose I can see the question from two perspectives, aside from the American perspective:
From the *world* perspective, I see a choice between McCain, who favored the Iraq war from the start, who favored the surge, and who favors remaining in Iraq with a strong force until we “win” (whatever *that* means?!), if necessary, and all-too-likely for 100 years, versus Obama, who opposed the war from the start, who opposed the surge, and who promises to withdraw in reasonably short order, leaving the Iraqi government just enough time to have a fighting chance to fill the power vacuum left, and hopefully to avoid civil war. I suppose it is *possible* that Obama might lead America to deal more death overseas than McCain’s policies promise, but it strikes me as unlikely in the extreme, given the choices they have already made and the policies he has promised for the future.
From a more local perspective, I suppose the choice might not be so simple. It is surely true that Iraq has the American military badly over-extended, and this will surely continue if McCain takes over. This is lousy for most Iraqis, but as regrettable as this is, it also might be seen as offering a sad sort of security to citizens of *alternative* potential targets of the US military, such as Pakistan and Iran. It is true, I suppose, that American ground action in Pakistan or Iran is very slightly more feasible once Obama gets the US out of Iraq than it would likely remain under McCain, and I can understand how this might make Iranians and Pakistanis nervous. His past choices, however, ensure that aggressive action is *far* less likely to be his preferred first choice than is true for McCain! The only argument that holds water, then, is that Obama has *something to prove* about being tough on Moslems, while McCain does not. I can offer a local American perspective on that question, I think:
It is true that ignorant persons accuse Obama of being “pro-Moslem” (presumably, they mean by this that he favors Moslems *above* others, which would be a real problem, not that he favors Moslems equally as much as he favors *all* human beings, which would *not* be a problem, except perhaps to those ignorant persons!), or even accuse Obama of *being* (secretly) Moslem.
(Of course, *being Moslem* should not be seen as even *relevant* in the US presidential campaign, but, sadly, it is considered relevant by those same ignorant persons. I *do* see that it would perhaps be relevant not that he was Moslem, but that he was *dishonest* about his religion, but, anyway, the charge is *ludicrous* because his history as a public, devout Christian stretches back *many years* before it could possibly have entered his head that he (perhaps the most unlikely presidential candidate in American history!) might have thought to himself, “Gee, I might someday want to run for President, so I better alter my entire way of life and keep secret and betray my true religion of Islam so I won’t run into difficulties in that future election!” The very idea is laughable! His espoused Christian faith is only in doubt among the most ignorant voters, voters who would not vote for him, anyway, even if the Republicans nominated the worst *conceivable* candidate!)
The unfortunate bottom line, though, is that during this election Obama *does* need to avoid looking “soft” on terrorists, partly because of the nonsense about him being Moslem or at least over-favoring Moslems. It is unfortunately possible that the issue will tip the balance against him in a very close election, if he does not “talk tough,” to a degree. It is also clear to me, though, that all his instincts are, rightly, to avoid actual and unnecessary violence that will harm the innocent, which is sadly *not* so clearly the case with McCain. If he is actually *elected*, therefore, I would confidently expect that his *actions* will be careful and well-justified. If he is actually *elected*, the ignorant people making the “Muslim Obama” case will have *lost*! Obama will surely want to run for re-election, but all he has to do to defeat, *again,* those ignorant persons worried about his attitude toward Islam and Moslems is simply to behave like a good leader and the intelligent American president he will be!
I sense some nervousness about future American military actions, so I want also to offer my perspective on those: The American military is hugely over-extended, already. While we remain in Iraq, even a small ground war anywhere new is virtually impossible unless we re-introduce the draft, which would be hugely unpopular with the American people unless there was a large, new attack against America, especially an attack with a nuclear weapon, poison gas, or biological weapons. The response to a truly massive attack on the US would be huge, tragic on both sides, but with anything less the military’s hands are tied by the size of the commitment in Iraq and the unpopularity of bringing back the draft. Any potential new aggression will therefore have to be small, in terms of resources, for example attack by air, only. Even if we were out of Iraq (as we may be, soon, under Obama), Iraq has taught the US military the limits in size of countries we can subdue without a much larger military built with a draft, and I believe the US military will powerfully oppose any larger future ground war that doesn’t have overwhelming popular support, so, for example, this option is “off the table” for both Pakistan and Iran, unless something drastic happened to infuriate (or terrify) the American people. In the specific case of Pakistan, I think, you can be assured; even the marginal friendship (or even at least the lack of active hatred) of Pakistan (neighbor to Afghanistan, after all!) is worth far too much for America to discard lightly, so I would expect that any action inside Pakistan by McCain or Obama (*especially Obama*) would be as focused as possible against confirmed enemies. If, for example, the US had credible information that bin Laden was in a given village, and there was doubt that a foreign government would or could act quickly enough, a targeted attack on bin Laden by the US would not surprise me, but wider action, such as widespread bombing in Pakistan, would just make no sense even to the most callous American with no concern at all for foreign loss of life. (I do not automatically defend any possible US attack on bin Laden on foreign soil - I am simply saying it would not surprise me. If the attack killed innocent civilians, their deaths would surely be tragic, and no nation, including the US, should trample lightly on another nation’s sovereign territory. On the other hand, bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are lasting threats to the US and to the peace of the world, including especially the peace of whatever nation they happen to occupy, so it would be my fervent hope that any tragic harm done to innocents by such an attack would be far less than the future harm done to innocents by leaving these dangerous and evil persons untouched.)
Atta dame, big daddy has showcased.
Dan - On the basis of some *assumptions* are you not indirectly granting the right or advocating the doctrine of necessity that US could attack a small country at will. Would US dare doing that to India, China, or USSR. I understand your intent but it seems that you are giving up as well. Can someone tell me who killed Abraham Lincoln, JFK, MLK, RFK, …… There is a much bigger problem here right in our own backyard Dan that needs to be addressed before we declare anyone else as a threat to world peace. Who is responsible for current economic crisis, sub-prime mortgage issue, energy crisis, and what not…Blessed be you Dan…
Very good. Excellent piece of writing. Its appreciable the way Don narrates the complicated international affairs, mindset of the American electorate and behind-the-scene lobbying by the US politicians.
Dear writers of TPS! We should learn from Mr. Don how nicely he makes his article, readable without being pompous in his sentence-making which he can do better than all of us (desis), being a native English man.
Many of us just try to fetch unnecessary words in our articles with the aim in mind to “impress” the readers and end with perplexing the issue by confused way of presentation. The best piece of writing is that which is comprehendable to all and sundry.
Sorry! I mis-spelled your name….DAN….I typed it Don…
Ch Naeem Sidhu, Thank you for your kind remarks, and don’t worry, I’m not touchy about my name. (Here at home, my last name is constantly mispronounced - others usually pronounce it as rhyming with “so”, but it actually rhymes with “now.”)
Mr. Bhutto,
You bring up an important point regarding the implicit doctrine of necessity behind American actions and assumptions. I tried fairly carefully neither to defend nor to deny that doctrine, actually, in my article and in my above comment. Instead I focused on the realities of dealing with probable actions under the American leadership alternatives, without regard to higher questions of moral ideals in a perfect world. In the real world, anyone looking to be elected US president who promised not to trample sovereign rights of any other country, *under any circumstances*, even given a chance to remove bin Laden with minimal “collateral damage” would *never*, *ever* stand a chance of being elected. I suspect the *same* would go for a similar scenario in any other democracy that was the victim of something on the scale of 9/11, but you might argue that point, if you disagree - do you? Actually, I’ve never properly addressed the important question of what is or should be legal in international law, and what morality ought to dictate there. I think it deserves a full article, so, inspired by your comment, I plan one in the future.
Truthfully, I am an Evangelical Christian and proud of it. But, I don’t think my beliefs qualify me to be a politician., rather I think they virtually prohibit me from seeking political office. It is the old issue of serving two masters, i.e., the world or the Lord.
In their prayer closets I believe a lot of other Christians, whether they are Evangelical or not, are struggling with the reconciliation of the politician who took the stage at the Republican convention and the “chrisitan” we are all taught to be.
Leave the country if you don’t like fair elections moron which would ultimately bring Experience as a winner.. That is not a democracy. Why do you hate democracy so much? Because you can’t win without cheating. Hell with O’bama
What we are witnessing here is proof that the Lord is looking after America and that prayers are heard and answered.
This wonderful warrior was pulled to our rescue at the last moment to put us back on course in our quest to do His work. He was listening in to the prayers from His faithful in Alaska and brought out the best he has to bring it all to fruition. Not a moment too soon.
Join us in our work to save those who can be saved. It’s not too late, yet.
God Bless Sarah Palin!