Hope amidst pessimism

This is a very pessimistic and cynical time for Iraq and America, right now.

Charlie Rangel's proposal of a new draft illustrates everything that I find foolish and counterproductive and nonsensical about Democrats, right now.

Henry Kissinger sounds a dour note that demonstrates that foreign policy experience does not equate with constructive policy advice.

And amidst all of the glum and helplessness that so many people feel in Iraq, largely because their cynicism about both means and ends in Iraq and in much policy are self-fullfilling...

Jeremy Greenstock has an excellent proposal for a political resolution to the underlying issues in Iraq along with a commitment to military resources to create as much security as possible to deal with this terrible mess. Jeremy's idea for a nationalized oil industry is questionable and would need to be reformed with free market commitments at some point, anyway. But otherwise, Jeremy's proposal is solid and a much more constructive alternative to Kissinger's similar proposal of an international conference with a weaker commitment to democratization in Iraq.

What distinguishes Greenstock's proposal from Charlie Rangel's cynical suggestion and Henry Kissinger's pessimistic prognostocations is that Greenstock is committed to a political resolution consistent with a more democratic Iraq even if that resolution may fall short of our ideals, but without giving up on the ideals.

So many people, Kissinger and Rangel included, confuse their cynicism and disappointment with realities they don't like -- an unstable Iraq, for Kissinger; the President declaring a war that Charlie disagreed with for Senator Rangel -- with some constructive approach to resolving the issue.

What Kissinger and Rangel are stuck on is the same failed way of thinking about the situation. The problem with the war was not enough force and control. For Rangel, the problem was that there wasn't enough controls on the President to declare the war. For Kissinger, the problem was not working to place Iraq under the thumb of a military strong-man early on, rather than committing ourselves to a democratic Iraq (while simiultaneously and nonsensically supporting the President's commitment to democraticatization, internationally).

When, no matter how much people keep fucking this up, the problem is not that there is not enough force or control over the situation. Those are control issues on the part of Henry and Charlie, who just can't come to terms with the fact that neither of them can control the things that they are trying to control.

The problem from the beginning, as Jeremy well argues, is that we have not taken democratic commitments seriously enough over the course of the war. My critique, up front, was that we did not consult with Iraqis who both needed to make a commitment to an invasion and needed to lead a revolt, I believe, to undercut insurgent efforts to expel the American infidel. Iraqis lives were at stake and noone talked with Iraqis about a possible invasion. Americans failed to discuss the option with Iraqi opposition and militia groups so that they could lead an effort and undercut perception and reality that Americans were invading for their own purposes. It was American hubris at its worst and we are paying the price for it.

And Jeremy argues well, I think, that the most pressing problem, today, is not military victory, which as Henry argues is not a viable option for resolving this situation. The problem is that democratic dialogue amongst all interested parties, both within Iraq and outside of Iraq, is not taking place to ensure an outcome that works for everyone's interests, including and especially Iraqis.

Jeremy is right. There is no reason that we need to lower our sights for democratization of Iraq. Is there going to be all kinds of obstacles and setbacks for many, many years to a more mature Iraqi democracy? Of course. They have no experience with democracy. But does that mean that we should resign ourselves to a civil war or to an opppressive Shia or Sunni majority or an autocracy with a military strong-man (Kissinger's suggestion, by the way, you notice, completely mirrors his advice and active support of Augusto Pinochet in Chile and to the assassination of at least one Chilean general by Kissinger directed assassins; so perhaps Henry is being a bit self-serving in his cynicism and, at the very least, perhaps we should be a little skeptical of that already failed advice)?

Of course we should not resign ourselves. Henry's experience in Chile should be reason enough for him to be skeptical of his own cynical advice and is perhaps a sign that Henry has not learned the lesson from that very tragic mistake on his part.

Resigning ourselves to the ugly realities that could take place in Iraq does not constructively deal with those realities, even if they fall short of our expectations. And, in the meantime, the cynicism undermines constructive efforts like the one proposed by Jeff Greenstock to take democratic approaches, as much as democratic outcomes, more seriously in finding a resolution that gets us closer to a more stable, more democratic Iraq, even if that reality falls short of our democratic ideals (ideals are not meant to be fulfilled completely, at all times, after all; they are blueprints for making our lives better and standards by which our efforts are judged as successes or failures).

A more open, more democratic, more participatory international multilateral conference of all parties internal and external in Iraq would go a long way to moderating sectarian conflict and insurgent resistance to an Iraqi government with final authority for the use of force, to dealing constructively with the concerns of involved parties, and with developing an Iraqi government that would satisfy various parties. Will this government fall short of our expectations and democratic ideals? Absolutely. But will a commitment to the fulfillment of those ideals get us closer than absent that commitment. Definitely. And it creates the space for criticisms of the Iraqi government and Iraqi society for the ways that they fall short of those ideals.

As William Safire, Alexis DeToqueville, and others have made clear, genuine democracy is not rule over, it is rule committed to self-governance and self-determination. Genuine democracy is not about coercing others to do our will. It is about empowering people to do their own, to do so freely, and out of that free will, to do so responsibly. And to responsibly engage others about and resolve important issues in ways that account for mutual interests.

People who think of democracy as, primarily, formal institutions to coerce their will are not committed to democracy genuinely at all. That kind of democracy is the most minimal commitments of those not committed sufficiently to freedom and equity as the foundations for self-determination and self-governance which are the most sustainable route to a well-governed society and the primary virtue of free societies and free peoples.

It is the primary virtue of free societies that those advocating more autocratic arrangements and free peoples alike persistently take for granted: that freedom creates the room for a society of self-governing people of virtue rather than the illusion of virtue in a society consumed with power, control, repression, retribution, revenge, destruction and self-destruction. Free societies are the only path to real virtue. Every other society is bound up in repression and self-deception. Palestine, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba are excellent examples of the latter; societies so wrapped up in their repression, retribution, revenge, destruction, and self-destruction that they just cannot face their failures of conscience and governance. They cannot face the ugly, dysfunctional cultures they have created and they cannot face the ugly, dysfunctional governments that they often support, and, in the case of Palestine and Iran, that they elect.

Free and democratic societies do not leave us free of vice. No culture does that. Free and democratic societies leave us more free, able, and likely to take responsibility for our vice and to embrace our virtue, in our personal choices and in our choices for governance.

What Charlie and Henry lack that Jeremy maintains is a genuine commitment to democracy. Not democracy as a means of controlling those you disagree with or democracy as a means of controlling a population. What Jeremy has that Charlie and Henry lack is a genuine commitment to democratic means and attitudes toward parties that takes seriously peoples' concerns and the self-determined concerns of Iraqis, not as obstacles to an external priority that must be imposed without consulting parties. Our goal of democracy for Iraq is a good one. But it is one that must be practiced more substantially, not just opined about and then imposed with a democratic process that lacks commitment to democratic substance, especially the need by Iraqis to a self-determined political solution to the crisis they face currently rather than impositions from America or elsewhere. Democracy, at its heart, is about engagement and ideas to resolve important problems that people face, not a process by which we manipulate to impose our will. To use the levers of democratic power in ways that undermines democratic conversation and engagement is not genuinely democratic. It is getting your way. Democratic means that other people are taken seriously other than yourself. And they are taken seriously equitably -- meaning on their own terms and by their own self-determined sense of their needs and interests -- not using a majority vote to shove your ideas down other peoples' throats.

The latter is democracy of the cynic. It is not genuine democracy, it doesn't take principles of equity and freedom seriously, and people who advocate it should not be taken seriously.

Democracy, at its heart, is about people equitably resolving problems in a way that takes freedom seriously and which looks after the interests of everyone equitably, not one person or one group at the expense of others.

And Henry and Charlie don't get that, frankly, because neither of them take seriously the interests or concerns of others nearly seriously enough.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Forcing others to do your bidding is not democratic. It is manipulative and dishonest and wrong.

And people who do it don't take commitments to freedom and democracy seriously enough. And they shouldn't be taken as seriously in a discussion about how to democratize.

Here's to hope amidst pessimism.

Love,
Ben

An enduring legacy

The Economist has an excellent obituary for Milton Friedman. The finest I've read thusfar.

An enduring legacy

It is amazing to me how one person can be so productive when so many people accomplish so little in their lifetimes.

The negative income tax (otherwise known as the earned income tax credit), a volunteer army, a commitment to free markets and central banks directing economic activity rather than government, public and private school choice and vouchers, proposing the idea of natural unemployment.

And that is not even to mention the powerful legacy of a promoting freedom, his ability to explain the powerful role that freedom plays in stronger, more responsible choices and understandings of the world, and his living legacy to that idea.

Milton Friedman accomplished more in one lifetime than most people ever imagine for themselves.

His ideas were powerful and animated by a commitment to freedom that has already done so much good for the world and will likely, hopefully, do still much good after his death.

When I say that I don't agree with everything that Milton Friedman has said or argued or thought or believed, I say it as someone who has never and will never agree with everything that anyone ever says. Milton's vision of the power of free peoples and markets to care for so many important social issues -- health, safety, the environment, poverty and wealth inequities, concerns around race, ethnicity, nationality, religious affiliation, gender, and so many other social issues -- was more limited than free people or free markets were capable of. And his failure of imagination on these issues will rationalize the very kinds of regulation of those markets that Milton so powerfully argued against unless free peoples take advantage of their freedom more responsibly to care for those issues. The failure of those regulations will neither be enough nor are they likely to deter the more ideologically-committed of their advocates, no matter what failures they create or encounter. It will take positive commitments by those within the free world and within free markets to offer real rather than just hypothetical alternatives to regulation or government to attempt to resolve such issues. Issues that can only be resolved with the free commitments of free peoples, but which ideologues may never be satisfied with undermining no matter their failures.

Milton Friedman's most important legacy was his commitment to freedom and the commitment to free thinking that is humanity's only most serious hope for resolving all of its most serious problems.

And it is that legacy that ranks Milton Friedman as one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. And one of the few thinkers whose ideas will live long after him into the 21st century and beyond.

Love,
Ben

Looking after number one

You know what's the ultimate self-centeredness that the majority of people in the world commit and that noone wants to take responsibility for:

They all want to be forgiven. But nobody wants to forgive.

It's the ultimate self-centeredness of humanity, as far as I'm concerned.

And the tragedy of it all is that we all do and will need forgiveness for our self-centeredness around forgiveness and all of the ways that our vision of the world is distorted by our self-centeredness.

You know why Democrats don't impress me in the least, these days?

The one way they try to distinguish themselves from Republicans is around wealth inequities.

And yet I very rarely hear from Democrats -- John Edwards and Barak Obama being two very rare exceptions and even their opining is kind of weak given the enormity of wealth inequities -- getting to the heart of wealth inequities. And the heart of wealth inequities is that we all take advantage of our neighbors and that we all need to stop. Rich people, middle class people, poor people. We all take advantage of our neighbor. And the only way we will stop, I'm convinced is to the degree that we stop voluntarily and to the degree to which we wisen up and don't let people take advantage of us to the greatest degree possible.

The sad fact of life is that the second option has limits in what it can do for us. And that, ultimately, when it comes to alleviating wealth inequities, the first option -- our willingness to voluntarily stop taking advantage of our neighbor -- is the only real hope we have on this issue.

And everything else -- the minimum wage, health care, family leave, education, etc. -- these issues are all just a function of our willingness to stop.

And until we do, this issue will remain on our individual and general consciences and our childrens' consciences and their childrens' consciences until we face it squarely.

The one really great thing about this period is that American hegemony -- liberal or conservative -- over the world is being seriously and permanently eroded, I think. America and people, generally, will either lead because they have better ideas for leadership, or they will lose their following. Force and power and wealth are not good enough reasons for leadership. And you can some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. And Democrats, like Republicans, will have to learn that lesson the hard way, it seems.

As long as we satisfy ourselves with the cyncism, a cynical reality will remain and all of the cyncical responses to the reality that have all gotten worse in the last 6 years will get worse. And the world will continue down that road until we wisen up and face the reality squarely.

The last 6 years have been one long self-congratulation by the left and by the right for all of their ugliest, meanest, most cynical, most thoughtless instincts.

And there is no real progress in that kind of self-congratulation.

Every ugly reality that has ever persisted in the world has been rationalized as the only possible reality by its cynical defenders or even cynical detractors. Slavery, oppression of women, oppression of minority ethnicities, religions, ideologies, and groups, imperialism, repressive government, poverty and wealth inequities.

Every single ugly reality in the world that exists or has existed has tried to suck new life from the cynical rationalization that the world could be and would be no other way.

And the only thing that has ever made those cynical realities go away is peoples' willingness to face them squarely and criticize them until they were resolved; not until the consciences of those who perpetuate them are appeased.

Forgiveness is the only context in which that can be done effectively. And it is the path that can facilitate it most quickly and successfully. There isn't enough prosecution in the world to make this issue or any issue go away. Conscience is what we must engage. And no other path will resolve this or any other issue. Every other path is temporary and minimal in scope.

And anyone who thinks differently around that fundamental issue, as far as I'm concerned, is just not being honest with themselves or others.

Here's to a world where we all take more serriously getting honest with ourselves.

Love,
Ben

Milton Friedman and personal freedom

Andrew Sullivan cites an excellent letter from Milton Friedman to Bill Bennett in 1989, when Bennett was President George H.W. Bush's drug czar.

From that letter:

In Oliver Cromwell's eloquent words, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken" about the course you and President Bush urge us to adopt to fight drugs. The path you propose of more police, more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish.

You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve.

Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.

Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages...

...This plea comes from the bottom of my heart. Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. A country in which shooting down unidentified planes "on suspicion" can be seriously considered as a drug-war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations.

Thank you, Milton, for your commitment to freedom.

Love,
Ben

Those who compel my will lose my heart

This period more than any other has convinced me that I can no longer identify exclusively or primarily with any ideology or party or group. Ideology and ideologues -- communism, socialism, Nazism, fascism as well as liberalism or conservativism and even anarchism or libertarianism; whatever ideology -- that compel conscience are as repugnant as religion that compels conscience.

There is a reason why there is such a absence of ideas in contemporary political and cultural discussions. Because force -- power -- has become an obsession in contemporary democratic politics. It's one of the most ironic and tragic features of early 21st century democratic politics, since the 20th century saw the thankful demise of the most serious threats to freedom and liberty and ideologies and governments premised on force as an organizing idea: communism, Nazism, fascism.

The idea that free and democratic peoples would spend a century opposing, rightly, ideologies premised around force only to turn to force, themselves, to try to govern themselves and to recommit the same mistake of governance that democratic peoples spent the previous century opposing is one of the terrible tragedies of the beginning of the 21st century.

It cannot possibly hold because force is what failed those regimes and what rationalized their abuses. Though, as we learned with communism, force can hold the human imagination for far longer than anyone who loves freedom could think bearable or imagineable.

The fact that Milton Friedman, who spent his life committed to cause of freedom, would die during a period of repression and regression, nevertheless a period of liberal repression, is a serious tragedy of this time.

What else would we refer to as a repressive period or a repressive regime but a time or a government that romanticizes the use of force or turns to force to solve its most pressing problems? There is no other meaningful definition of repression.

And the fact that Milton Friedman had to die during a time when liberals are romanticizing force to cure economic woes that he spent a lifetime arguing powerfully as a medicine worse than the sickness is tragic for Milton and tragic for all of us, really.

He thankfully saw the end of communism as a serious alternative to democracy as an organizing principle for governance. And there is little doubt that Democrats control power temporarily, thankfully, in a democracy, as do Republicans, thankfully. There is little doubt in my mind that force as an organizing principle of democratic governance cannot hold long because its failure and abuses during the 20th century were real and serious.

It's one of the most important bits of wisdom from a serious liberal thinker, Lord Acton, that we have from the 20th century:

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

How terrible that we would spend the early 21st century romanticizing the most terrible legacy of the 20th century.

Democratic peoples romanticizing force look like Russians romanticizing Stalin.

At least under Stalin we ate, reason too many Russians. Which, of course, was not true; some ate, some starved. At least when we were forced to be good, reason democratic peoples, we were not so bad. Which, of course, is not true. As with today, many were good; all were bad.

Repression, in both cases, undermined all aspects of life: moral, material, political, cultural, academic, personal.

Repression is the most seriously tragic legacy of humanity. And that it takes so much time to die in the early 21st century demonstrates just how foolish humanity's commitment to this failed principle remains. Foolishness and stubborness are often synonymous, in my experience. And this example is the most serious of that sad fact of life that our time has to offer.

Those who compel my will lose my heart.

And my heart, my conscience, is not open for compulsion.

My heart, my conscience, is now and forever committed to freedom.

Love,
Ben

Rest in peace, Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman, one of the more brilliant economists of the 20th century, has died at the age of 94.

Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman has died: reports

A very sad day for those who love individual freedom and care about free markets. Friedman was perhaps the most important advocate for free markets and one of the most important advocates for individual freedom of the 20th century. Friedman's advocacy for personal freedom is probably more important than his monterarist economics philosophy, per se. But monertarism was a vehicle for Friedman to advocate for as little interference of the government in markets as possible. His work around education markets is some of the finest I've seen and a very persuasive case for the cause of freedom in promoting education.

What I loved about Friedman is that he was convinced, rightly, that his right of conscience on almost any issue that mattered was more important than the government's right to resolve that matter of conscience for him. He was right about that. And it is what most endeared me to this very smart and decent man.

Thank you for your contributions, Dr. Friedman.

Love,
Ben

Strong-arming and its consequences

You know what's really interesting?

My original reaction to being strong-armed by administrators when I was so completely in good faith on everything they've tried to strong-arm me around was to have my feelings hurt. I was in good faith, there was no reason to strong-arm me, and they strong-armed me anyway because of this foolish, popular notion that change can or must be forced (which it can't, of course; some people just have to learn that lesson the hard way, I'm learning).

But now, I'm getting over my hurt feelings. And at this point I'm just losing respect for people who continue to argue that line because they so often do so at the expense of other options, they've gotten so obsessed with it. My administrators do seem to be completely losing track of what strong teaching and leadership looks like in their obsession with looking tough. And folks like Carl Levin, arguing for the most mindless and arrogant option for handling the Iraq war being passed around these days -- to pressure the Iraqis to take care of the mess we created -- just looks like a fool to me, these days. I used to respect Carl more. Now I just think, "What would lead someone to so mindlessly pursue one option that has such a terrible track record and ignore all others?" The answer: because Democrats are convinced that this is what brought them to power. The truth is that Americans voted against Republicans, not for Democrats. And they can vote against Democrats, similarly, if and when Democrats fail to resolve the situation in Iraq because they decided to get stuck on an option that is not likely to yield results.

Some people are kind of hard-headed, I'm learning. But plenty of failure will either lead to them changing their mind, or people changing their leadership.

Either way, once this obsession fails and pitters out, we will have to move on.

Because we can't just keep failing forever.

Love,
Ben

Small minds

The essence of small minds is not too complicated:

Expend enormous energy and attention on things that really aren't that serious or important in the grander scheme of things. Solve nothing, but insist on much that doesn't matter. Annoy the shit out of those with a vision of the big picture. Argue/pressure yourself into irrelevance:).

So sad that everyone is given the same capacity for intelligent reflection. But so few use that capacity for anything beyond smaller priorities.

Thank goodness for us that a few people keep their attention on the things that matter in life:).

Love,
Ben

Making someone else shoulder the burden

I think I'm beginning to understand the issue that so many people deal with today in their relationships that is the source of so much conflict.

Everyone wants someone else to shoulder the burden.

Or when they shoulder the burden, they want control over others that they just can't have and that produces resentment among those they work with.

And there is no other way out of that situation but with everyone learning to shoulder the burden, and respecting, better, the freedom of others as they do not.

There are consequences for not shouldering the burdens of life that we face together. And there are consequences for trying for force people to shoulder those burdens. Neither sorts of consequences are the ones that the people involve intend. People who avoid shouldering the burdens deal with a life more burdened by the consequences of their neglegence. And those who try to control others deal with the way that this undermines peoples' trust in their leadership.

It's a hard lesson to learn, I understand.

But the only way to a world where everyone takes more responsibility for themselves and their behavior is one that respects peoples' freedom to screw up, in all of these ways. Until they can figure out for themselves just how little either route works.

Humanity perpetually comes back to the worn out, unproductive, regressive and repressive principle that people must be controlled or hurt or punished or otherwise forced to do what is best for them.

And it perpetually fails. Every single generation that it is revamped.

And it will continue to fail, until we face up to the failure.

And that is one reality that we can never force out of existence.

Learning is the only route that creates serious progress for humanity. Learning takes time and patience. And freedom. And there is no way to force it differently.

Love,
Ben

A military commitment to political success in Iraq

Frederick Kagan has really impressed me over the course of this war with his vast knowledge of military operations and strategy and his most recent Weekly Standard column is no exception.

No Third Way in Iraq

Frederick's title and some of his writing in this piece to make me suspect of his politics (the title seems to ask conservatives to dig in for a fight with liberals over the matter of redeployment and Iraq policy, which is not only a foolish, foolish suggestion, politically, I think, since Democratic control over the House and Senate makes such a fight seriously handicapped for Republicans, it also seems to be just the oppposite suggestion that is necessary to generate the kinds of bi-partisan -- and in the case of representatives of Iraqi ethnic groups, multipartisan -- policy ideas that might be adopted by Iraqis to develop a sustainable democratic government).

But I have to say that what I always appreciate about Frederick's writing is his very serious appreciation for the reality that military operations are a critical support for security needs that are more basic than politics, right now, and which are needed to support a political process that will take time to win the confidence and/or trust of enough Iraqis to make it sustainable.

As Frederick argues well at the end of his piece.

"It is quite true, as the American leadership often says, that there is no military solution to the problem in Iraq. That is true of any counterinsurgency--at the end of the day, the solution will have to come from the political process. But it is also true of almost every counterinsurgency that there is a military component necessary for political success. The American civilian and military leadership has consistently downplayed and shortchanged this military component. We are coming up on what will probably be the last window of opportunity to regain control of the situation in Iraq and stop the slide toward chaos and defeat. Considering the likely consequences of such a defeat for the region, our nation, and our armed forces, we would be derelict if the effort is anything less than all-out."

Frederick's c0mments are not fair to the leadership of folks like General George Casey who have argued for both the need for a political solution to the crisis in Iraq and the need for a U.S. military commitment to make such a solution possible.

But Kagan is right, I think, to keep our attention on the need for military strength to provide the basic security necessary for a political solution to take hold.

Americans take our security for granted, I think, because we are so well-protected. Katrina should have been a reminder of what life looks like, even in America, when security is taken for granted.

An absence of real security in Iraq will surely undermine a democratic political solution, and, as Kagan argues, create more backlash against America's role in the situation, rather than relieving us of an unhappy burden. As Kagan argues, the absence of confidence in American backing of Iraqi security efforts would likely, given our history with Iraqi soldiers, fuel insurgency as Iraqis make fewer commitments and/or abandon security efforts in lieu of a convincing and forceful presence by the American military and more certain victory over insurgents, especially in difficult battle scenarios where Americans provide an essential backing for Iraqi forces. It is wishful thinking, given our history with Iraqi military and law enforcement forces and given the untenable situation of insurgent and defensive militias from a variety of groups and areas within the country and the repeated requests by the interim government that American forces remain that an American drawdown would improve Iraqi security and not seriously deteriorate that security so necessary for a government built on sustainable democratic principles and political compromise between groups to take hold.

America has a choice to make. It's not an enviable choice for us. Neither are the choices available to Iraqis enviable.

But the least worst option, right now, is not pull-out or draw-down, both of which are recipes for disaster and military and political collapse in Iraq. The least worst option is sticking with a bad situation until a better situation can be created from the mess that currently exists.

We don't have to stay, obviously. And if we decide the leave, which we should at least have the balls to admit that we are doing so because Democrats don't feel responsibility for President Bush's war and that they want Iraqis to take this mess off their hands, not because Democrats are operating with some sort of noble purpose, if that is the option they press. Democrats who press for withdrawal are either deluded by their arrogance that somehow they care more about Iraqi security and a peaceful Iraqi political future than the Iraqis themselves, or they are cowardly in the face of America's responsibilities given the mess that we have created of Iraq, at this point, unless I hear a better argument to the contrary.

The only real option is staying the course and creating a sustainable political process for Iraqi governance.

Americans should consider the alternatives because it allows us to do what we know we need to do:

The right thing. To stay until we have confidence that the Iraqi government and military can handle the security challenges they face.

And our capacity for genuine commitment to doing the right thing comes from our ability to choose otherwise and freely choosing to do the right thing, despite our reservations and despite the sacrafice involved.

And it puts my own sacrafices at Eisenhower in perspective. I might or might not be happier elsewhere, right now, given the current political climate in my school and in the district, right now. But I didn't get into teaching for the pay or the comfort. I got into teaching to affect reform of inner city schools like Eisenhower. And I'm not putting my life on the line, every day. To the contrary, I am hoping that I am helping to make Kansas City and surrounding cities like Lawrence far safer for my presence in it and I am doing it in one of the safest place for kids and people to spend time, generally: in a school.

I hate any situation where political pressure overwhelms reason and its capacity to patiently help us navigate difficult situations.

But reason has to operate in our dealings in Iraq (and in schools), at some level, because nothing else makes sense.

And our dealings there must be animated by patience, thought, and courage if we are to find a peace that will last and to do good by our very serious, very tragic mistakes.

Thanks to Frederick Kagan for offering me the opportunity to reflect on this very serious choice and what it says about us and our capacity for doing the right thing in the face of difficult sacrafices.

Why Democrats and Republicans invest too much confidence in government

George Will has a brilliant article in the Washington Post, today, that illustrates exactly the "irrational exhuberance," as George calls it and as Alan Greenspan originally referred to the source of the hazy vision that led to the technology bubble and crash of the late 90's, that has characterized Democratic and Republican governments alike as each invest too much confidence in the power of government to solve important problems.

Innoculated for Exhuberance

And George is exactly right on both counts.

Hillary Clinton's and Washington Democrats' foolish conviction that the Federal government could and should effectively coerce every level of government and every citizen in a cumbersome, overbearing government health care plan was perhaps the most serious investment of far too much confidence in government during the last Democratic Administration.

And George Bush's belief that the U.S. government could remake the Middle East with its military might is perhaps the most serious investment of far too much confidence in government during either the last Democratic or Republican Administration.

They are two different mistakes with two very different sets of problems. Challenging Saddam Hussein likely did need outside and overwhelming military force to do the job. But believing that the U.S. could do it alone, especially without the support and leadership of the Iraqi people, as well as the support of our democratic and critical non-democratic allies in the region was American hubris at its worst. Republican backing of this foreign policy failure as well as Democratic incompetence to develop an alternative policy other than some different version of American hegemony in the form of pressuring the Iraqis to clean up the mess we made (does our arrogance have no bounds?) will likely undermine American power in serious ways if America does not humble herself in world affairs.

The foolish national health care plan offered by Hillary Clinton luckily was less ambitious and less successful. And it too, as George well argues, was a terrible investment of confidence by an Administration in the power of government to solve a problem that it cannot and should not attempt to solve.

As George argues, "the most important thing a government can know...(is) what it is that it doesn't know." And that is the source of the hubris of both Democrats and Republicans in Washington -- investing too much confidence in Federal solutions -- that need our vigilant criticism and correction.

It is the perpetual problem of solutions imposed by Washington. They assume that they know more than they really know to solve those problems. In America, it is the most important reason to have divided government, separation of powers, and checks and balances: to check the hubris of those seeking national power. Typically Washington legislators know far less than they would need to solve more serious problems in the country. Their power should be limited and exercised in the most limited of ways if it is to be either effective or wise. To the extent that Washington overestimates its understanding of issues (which is more often than not), it generally makes problems worse, is my study and experience.

And to the extent that all power is exercised humbly (which is less often than not) the more effectively and wisely it can be used for any purpose.

Check out George's article for a very insightful look into the hubris of all parties whenever they exercise power.

Democrats won an election for one brief political era. Lord Acton and George Will have wisdom for the ages.

Love,
Ben

Forgiving Brandi for good

I don't know why, but I've just started to come to terms with how hurt I've been for the last few weeks/months (I don't remember how long it's been) having Brandi sever our friendship.

You know what the kicker was?

I've felt the pain every day. I've been bitter and I've thought terrible things about Brandi. About what I would say or do if I ever saw her again.

And then, today, it occurred to me that it's been a long time since I've allowed myself to think about good times with Brandi. Because it just hurt so much to allow myself to do it.

And today, in a moment of hope and appreciation for people around me, I just started thinking about her, again.

And I realized that I am so tired of thinking nasty things about her. Because it means that I can't think about all of the good times.

I would rather hurt and deal with the pain and think about everything I loved and appreciated about Brandi than I would hold onto this bitterness that is just sitting like a dark, angry obsession in my heart with how Brandi hurt me as much as she possibly could. By ending our friendship.

I don't want this shit on my heart. I want Brandi to be great with Greg. I want her to have a great life. I want her to have great kids and a great family. And I want her and Greg and her family to be happy. And I want all of those things even if I'm cut out of her life.

And I want it for me.

Because I don't want to spend the rest of my life hating her because I hurt so bad. I want to remember how great Brandi was. And know how great Brandi still can be.

And I want it more than all this bitterness inside of me. Which is just polluting my soul, really.

I don't know how long it's going to take to work through all of these dark feelings. But I don't want them on my heart anymore. I want to remember the good times.

And I want Brandi's life to be great, with or without me.

Because anything less is beneath me. And certainly not fair to Brandi.

And it's the only route that offers me any real happiness. And access to memories of my most idealistic and trusting time in my life. Which are more important to me than anything I could buy or earn or have at any point in my life.

Here's to forgiving Brandi for good.

Love,
Ben

Breakthrough

We had a meeting, today, about the new math assessments and benchmarks and what it means for special education.

A lot of issues got discussed which helped us work through some of the real challenges we are facing.

And not only did my principal finally seem to really get it how difficult this work is for the kids and thus for the teachers to get them where they need to be...

But one administrator seemed to inadvertantly acknowledge what I've been suspecting all along.

They are intimidated by my intelligence. And acting like it doesn't matter, which it clearly does to anyone paying attention. And my principal, who is the other smartest person at the table every meeting I've been apart of seemed to understand that better, today.

Chips on shoulders. It's a tedious thing to deal with working with a boss.

But it's more tedious when it gets in the way of the work.

A little ray of hope, today:).

Love,
Ben

My administration has exhausted its trust with me

I hope election results with Democratic wins please my administrators.

Because they have exhausted their trust with me.

I don't want to work with them anymore.

Bullying has consequences.

And the biggest one is that I don't trust you anymore.

Ben

Why I just can't support Rudy Guliani anymore

Because I could never vote for someone who thinks this simplistically.

Rudy Guliani on the midterm elections

Goddamn, I hope Barak Obama will run this election. Because I just can't stomach the idea of voting for Hillary Clinton.

Run, Barak, run.

Love,
Ben

It's official: I hate my job

I've hated my job for the last three weeks. Last Friday was a new low. Today was a newer low.

I had an evaluation, today, with an assistant principal for two classes she observed that went off beautifully. The classes were engaged, they were answering questions, they were asking questions, and the kids who normally disrupted class were not disrupting class.

And all Ms. Cowan could see was how everything wasn't perfect. The kids who were not disrupting class, today, and making serious efforts to show me that they were trying, as far as Marsha was concerned, they weren't participating and I wasn't making sure they were. I was differentiating for three levels of students, but for Ms. Cowan it wasn't enough (no matter how huge a task that is). And the kicker was that we were doing the higher level math work to prepare for 8th grade benchmarks, the kids were getting it far better than in the past, and for Ms. Cowan it still wasn't rigorous enough, even though this was one of the first classes where kids seemed to really get it.

Ms. Cowan has officially become exactly the kind of administrator that I hate working for now. And of the many reasons driving me out of the teaching profession, her mentality of nothing ever being enough has just topped my list.

Why do public service when people always feel this way? Nothing is ever enough. I can't think of a good reason.

There's a part of me that feels like, "I have done enough. The job isn't done. But there's no way in hell that people are going to let me do the job that would need to get done. So why bother?"

It's not just others making mistakes, these days, that is bothering me. It is them imposing their mistakes on me because they just can't handle fucking up their own work. They have to fuck up mine, as well.

I need another profession. Something I don't care about, as much. Something that doesn't matter so when people act stupid I just have to take it so seriouly.

A university would be similarly infuriating with the same headaches with people who are more convinced that they are right, all the time, because they have Ph.D.'s.

The business world was similarly frustrating with people who had no clue at all always bossing me around.

I guess I can either start my own independent business, or I can do what my professors and teachers said all along -- be the person with all of the power. But these days, the person with the most power (meaning the capacity to force others to do his bidding) is the President, and there is no way in hell that I would want to be in his shoes. I couldn't imagine a more miserable job.

All I know is I hate my job. And I need to do something else.

Congratulations to every liberal, conservative, whatever the fuck they call themselves, who rationalized force as a means of solving problems that it can't solve, no matter how much we pretend. I hate my job, I don't trust anyone I work with, I don't trust the government, and I don't trust anyone any more than I can throw them because they all want to force my hand all the time.

As Fukuyama aludes to in his new book, that is the consequence of an accountability/force system of getting things done. It undermines trust. And it definitely undermines mine. Because I don't trust a goddamn person anymore.

Nice job.

Ben

Enron in public schools

I feel like I'm at Enron, right now, with the level of rationalization and self-deception that people are engaging in so that they think they will make AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress; a mininum standard under the No Child Left Behind Act), this year. Everyone is rationalizing leaving behind kids and math skills, they are so focussed on complying with the "No Child Left Behind Act."

Ironic, huh?

But it's so clear at this point.

And as completely disturbing as it is to me, right now, it makes me really proud that I haven't given into all this bullshit.

Lying to yourself and others is a nasty habit. It fucks up your perception. And it leads to things like tech bubbles and housing bubbles. And wars where you have no clue what to do to make the situation better.

And school failure.

Love,
Ben

Rising to their level of incompetence

I am completely convinced of the axiom that people rise to their station of imcompetence at this point.

It is completely clear to me, at this point, that people who get administration jobs are the people who apply for the jobs. I've got good friends who apply for those jobs who I love, but if they ever tried to pretend that this meant that they had more wisdom to offer, I would buy them a beer and tell them do some more studying:):).

I just had a meeting with an administrator on a formal evaluation that convinced me that if you pretend like you know more than you really do, you look like an ignoramus. It's a bad strategy in life. And it means that people trust you less, not more.

I am quickly losing confidence in my administration. Which is trouble. Because it's when good teachers look at leaving. Being fired would be a blessing, right now, because the less you can trust your leadership, the less effectively you can accomplish bigger goals and trust them to get you there. At that point, it really does become every person for themselves. Because you don't have leadership that you can follow with any level of trust.

Power corrupts. Because it infects the mind with a compulsion to always get more of it when you're convinced that it hasn't accomplished what you really want deep down.

To have your opinions respected.

And that only comes with knowing what you're doing:).

Love,
Ben

Joe Nye, least possible necessary aggression, and non-proliferation after North Korea

Joe Nye, the University Distinguised Service Professor at Harvard's JFK School of Government and international policy scholar renowned for his work around soft power, has an very good column in today's Washington Post.

Nonproliferation After North Korea

Joe brings a wealth of knowledge on non-proliferation and its history to the table on the question of North Korean non-proliferation, since non-proliferation is perhaps Joe's most important specialization.

As Joe argues, we are probably ahead of the game, right now, with non-proliferation, given the number of total countries that have pursued a nuclear defense policy. And there is much reason that we may make additional gains as countries, like South Africa, take up a nuclear defense only to give it up as countries commit to nuclear non-proliferation as a principle rather than as a political or legal constraint (where the only sustainable future for non-proliferation lies, in reality, I believe).

Joe recommends several actions to prevent future non-proliferation on the Korean continent:

1) Security guarantees for Japan and South Korea to prevent North Korea's neighbors who might feel threatened from pursuing their own nuclear defenses.

2) Strengthening international institutions committed to non-proliferation, including U.N. sanctions against North Korean nuclear development and to enforce norms of nonproliferation.

3) Increasing the budget and inspection capabilities of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association) and supporting IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei's plan for creating a bank of enriched uranium to made available in exchange for guarantees that countries will not develop their own independent plants (thus IAEA controls the production, sale, and trade of enriched uranium and weapons-grade nuclear material).

4) Continue warning North Korea with dire reprisals if it exports nuclear weapons or materials and stiffening the resolve of China and South Korea for enforcing trade, financial and weapons export/import sanctions, especially around trade contributing to a North Korean nuclear program.

It is refreshing and precient for Joe to acknowledge a reality that I am anticipating, which is that a sanctions regime will likely erode in its effectiveness, within a year Joe believes, which is why I think sanctions are likely a mistake around anything but limiting North Korea's capacity to export weapons or materials to terrorist groups, rogue states, or other actors likely to use such weapons against U.S. and international interests, which is probably still quite a ways off.

From there, Joe gets to a long-range strategy (a long-term strategy being the only one that makes sense to me, at this point, since North Korea's capacity to develop a full-blown nuclear program capable of presenting a credible threat or the capacity to export materials is still a future rather than a present danger):

"A long-term strategy will require a carrot as well as a stick. We can offer recognition and economic integration in return for a freeze in the production of fissile material, IAEA inspections and a renewed commitment to a long-term denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Someday, probably within the next decade, the North Korean regime will disappear (probably more rapidly through integration than isolation) and prospects will improve that Korea could follow the South African example."

Suggestions 1 and 3 and qualified versions of 2 and 4 of the short-term strategies I think could likely to serve our long-term interests. Security guarantees with a sustained U.S. military presence would be incentive for Japan and South Korea to not accelerate an arms race in the region (a race itself, as the U.S. and Soviet Union proved in the 1980's does not, itself, constitute nuclear engagement; it does, however, increase the fear which makes everyone more edgy and makes conflicts more scary and dangerous). An IAEA bank of enriched uranium and a sustained commitment to the IAEA as an inspections and independent non-proliferation institution are decent short-term strategies for giving incentive to countries considering nuclear programs to not pursue them and demonstrating a continued commitment to independent institutions committed to nuclear non-proliferation.

Suggestions 2 and 4 are both short-term in their thinking and come with important trade-offs to consider. Strengthening the U.N. as a institution committed to democratic engagement about non-proliferation is an important idea and one that keeps communication channels open around a heated and fear-provoking issue like nuclear proliferation. A sanctions regime, however, escalates the cycle of aggression, threats and counter-threats and defiance between democratic countries of the West and Iran and North Korea. The empirical evidence from the last 3 years or so is that the more threats are made, the more ambitiously that both countries pursue nuclear weapons. If we want to accelerate those ambitions, an effective strategy would seem to be to increase the level of aggression and threats and counter-threats between those countries. It's true that a sanctions regime will likely wear off in a year or so. It's also likely, given recent experience, that we will see a North Korean and/or Iranian regime with a wetter appetite, if not more material commitment, to a nuclear program rather than less once sanctions have broken down. It's a gamble. And it's a gamble that we have been losing in the last 3 years or so. It seems foolish to keep betting on a losing horse without considering that perhaps its the horse we're betting on rather than a being loyal to a failing horse or, worse, believing that the race is unwinnable.

Similarly, suggestion 4, threatening dire reprisals in case of North Korean nuclear exports, makes sense if and when they have nuclear materials that are developed and plentiful enough to warrant eminent concern about such exports and only when we are thoroughly convinced that such exports are occuring and that it is immediately clear that nuclear materials are ending up in the hands of dangerous actors. We can warn North Korea not to engage in such exports and that we will take whatever action we deem necessary to prevent Al Queda from getting nuclear materials (which would constitute an eminent threat, obviously, given our history with Al Queda and their standing real threats and destruction to U.S. citizens and interests).

But our immediate history with North Korea and Iran suggests that the more we threaten them around this issue, the more threatened they feel and the more ambitiously they engage in a defensive and aggressive posture that, paradoxically, leads them to be more ambitious in their pursuit of a nuclear program and, conceivably, to seek out allies in their antagonism towards U.S. and other democratic countries' interests.

If we ignore our immediate history with these countries, we will likely face more of the same, which has led to accelerated nuclear ambitions for both countries, rather than decelerated ambitions, which is our goal. An empirical squaring of our goals and the results of our recent efforts would suggest that we deal with North Korea and Iran with less aggression and less threats and more diplomacy more genuinely committed to North Korean and Iranian interests.

Which gets us to Joe's last most long-term suggestion, which is a focus on North Korean economic (and I would add political) integration into the international political and economic order, a move that has made serious gains in reducing antagonisms and increasing cooperation between the U.S. and China and Vietnam, in the region, at the very least.

Joe makes that integration conditional on Pyongpang's willingness to give up its nuclear ambitions, and predicts that within the decade the North Korean regime will disappear (and if I am interpreting him correctly, and I would agree, he is referring to the Communist regime, period, rather than to Kim Jong Il's rule, specifically). That makes sense insofar as political integration needs to involve trust-building measures that North Korea is not looking to threaten its neighbors to the South or the U.S. or looking to export materials in ways that would threaten democratic or allied and even non-allied countries.

But integration should also happen independently of a full-fledged commitment by North Korea to abandon its nuclear capabilities, I think, given the power of political and economic integration to seriously improve the relationships and the likelihood of military confrontation between China and the U.S., for instance, an effort that should be tried and repeated, if possible, with regimes like North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria, etc. when possible.

Economic and political integration do not mean that we have to trust regimes we know are not trustworthy. But they build trust where is would not exist otherwise and make military confrontations far less likely. It is not just democratic nations that threaten other democratic nations less, I believe. It is democratic nations openly and respectfully engaged with other democratic and even non-democratic nations that means for more democratic and peaceful, diplomatic engagement over serious issues like non-proliferation which look after the common interests of countries and populations and reducing propensities for military confrontations or provocations. China, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are all examples of powerful autocratic countries that offer less threat and more cooperation to U.S. interests and to the interests of other U.N. member countries the more they are constructively engaged around mutual interests and the less their interests are treated as mutually exclusive with U.S. strategic interests. North Korea and Iran are clearly more dangerous actors. But there is reason to believe that successes with constructive engagement with China and Vietnam, for instance, might be repeated in North Korea and Iran, given a sufficient commitment to the long-term interests of North Korean and Iranian nations and peoples. Economic and political integration and engagement make sense independent of conditions, but conditions would be good trust-building measures in strengthening relations between North Korea and Iran and their democratic neighbors, which would serve the mutual interests of all parties involved. All options, more and less aggressive, are always available given a more immediate threat from either regime. But more aggressive options clearly come with consequences, many of which have been counterproductive and fueled their nuclear appetites rather than ended them.

Joe ends with concluding thoughts on the non-proliferation enterprise generally:

"North Korea's nuclear test is not the end of the nonproliferation regime if we develop such a strategy. The resumption of the six-party talks is a first small step. For those who believe that the horse is out of the barn, the answer is that it matters how many horses are out and how fast they are running. This race is far from over."

That is true. And we must recognize the reality from both our failures to threaten Iran or North Korea into submission and in our unintentional provocation of Iran and North Korea to increase and materially support their nuclear ambitions that future non-proliferation, as with past non-proliferation, has depended in large part, despite our wishes otherwise, on the good faith commitment by member countries to make and keep agreements to principles around non-proliferation -- namely that arms races increase dangers and threats to all countries, with weapons with potentially serious and massive consequences and therefore should be avoided -- rather than with coerced regimes, per se.

It is completely clear that the withdrawal of North Korea from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea and the assertion of the right by Iran to pursue such a program (though only a civilian program has been detected by the IAEA at this point) have occured after both were being confronted with threats from the U.S. as members of President Bush's Axis of Evil and as the U.S. made accusations around their programs. The U.S. provokes with accusations and threats, and the consequence is an Iranian regime and a North Korean regime that, feeling threatened and defensive, assert their right to nuclear materials and to pursue nuclear options more rather than less in the face of such provocation. The U.S. is not to blame for a North Korean or Iranian nuclear program, but we must recognize our role in their development if we want to cease their development. If we want that cycle to end, we will need to recognize how our aggression and actions may, in fact, accelerate the cycle, rather than reduce the propensity for more aggression and provocation and proliferation.

Everyone has good reason to be concerned about North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions. Neither regime is particularly trustworthy with such dangerous weapons, and their provocative behavior -- especially on the part of North Korea -- reflect leadership that is both dangerous and unpredictable.

But we must be vigilant and rigorous in our critical evaluation of how our policies and actions are effective, ineffective and/or counterproductive in making those regimes and the international community more or less safe or dangerous given the realities we face with non-proliferation. Stubbornly pursuing policies that undermine our goals is a mistake. And not recognizing our failures and the increased threat that we face 3 years after pursuing each regime with threats and aggression makes it very difficult for us to develop more effective policies to contain this threat.

Future failure will undoubtedly be needed for us to face our need to develop a sustainable, long-term commitment to diplomacy, engagement, and sustained relations built on mutual interests, with options to take more aggressive actions when threats of nuclear exports to bad actors like Al Queda or nuclear attack are more imminent rather than as distant as they are today, if we are to get beyond the nuclear stand-off that we have faced for the last 3 years. That stand-off, involving threats and provocations by the U.S. and U.N. member countries, has led to a more nuclear armed North Korea and an Iran which may very well be developing nuclear weapons but which is certainly more committed to their development in light of our aggressive posture.

If we want North Korea's and Iran's defensive and provocative nuclear ambitions to end, we will need to significantly curb our own aggression and provocation. Building institutions and relationships that build and sustain trust around nuclear and other security issues is a far more promising path to nuclear and international security than accelerating the cycle of aggression.

Love thy neighbor or why Jesus, Buddha, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King were naive goody-two-shoes

Love thy neighbor. And if that doesn't work, kick the shit out of them.

I'm pretty sure that's what Jesus said. Or at least that's what you'd think watching the contemporary politics. Everyone loves Jesus. But everyone loves bullying their neighbor. Because Jesus didn't have a mortgage to pay.

We're all such fuckin' shitheads. And noone wants to own up. And our world will continue to be a huge fuckin' mess until we face up.

Love they neighbor is the only way out of this mess. Because an awful lot of people are going to need an awful lot of forgiveness before it's all through.

Love,
Ben

I think I'm going to start looking for a new job this weekend

I don't think I can handle this anymore.

I've watched as my 7th grade team of math teachers and my principal all basically indicated that covering their asses with assessments was more important than whether the kids learned anything or not. As it turns out, the basic skills that I was arguing needed to be covered are two of the benchmarks my kids and all kids have to pass. Meaning doing the right thing was the right thing even for the tests.

But that's not what all of this has been about. What this has all been about is whether people can control me or not. People's assumption that because my conscience comes first, and I teach kids first and look out for their needs, first, rather than after my own ass, that I must be insubordinate. Even when I'm right.

What my principal and my colleagues want is someone who can tow the line, better, wrong as well as right. And I'm not that person.

And I think I need to move on.

I think I'm going to start putting in applications for new jobs this weekend. Because I can't stomach this anymore.

Love,
Ben

Democracy of an irrational mob

Robert Samuelson has a very insightful column in the Washington Post, today, that illustrates the central problem of democratic politics that persistently obstructs meaningful resolution of important policy problems: irrational, volatile, self-centered public opinion.

He's right, too.

The most serious problem in American politics is that frank and intelligent discussion of important problems almost always gets drowned out by meaningless palaver, as David Nimmo and John Combs called it in their brilliant book on the subject, The New Propaganda: The Dictatorship of Palaver in Contemporary Politics. Meaningless and petty engagement that has much to do with attacking candidates, attacking parties, and attacking ideologies dominates contemporary political discussions, no matter how little good such communication has for improving or resolving important issues is the most important barrier to substantive progress on almost every policy issue that America and the world faces.

I've never understood it. Why tabloid politics dominates and substantive conversations bore less serious and mature citizens. Likely, it's for the same reason that classwork bores less serious and mature citizens. Because they're self-centered. Because they're oriented around immediate gratification. Because most people are kind of selfish and petty.

In school politics, the number one obstacle to almost every meaningful effort that might improve student academic performance or undermines other important priorities for kids and teachers is the pettiness, irrationality, and self-centeredness of school politics. Kids are all of these things, almost by nature, no matter how good of kid they are. The real problem is adults; parents, teachers, administrators, everyone. So many important solutions to problems gets obstructed by the power struggles between petty and small people with petty and small priorities constantly obstructing important goals. Because they don't care about the bigger goals, is the truth, no matter how much they protest in their defense. It is strange to discover that teachers, of all people -- since they have so many other career options they could take up to pursue more selfish and petty ends -- can be so incredibly small-minded and self-centered. It's very sad and a huge dissappointment to a me who, as a kids, genuinely believed that teachers cared about me more than it turns out than they likely did. It's very, very sad to me. Had I know how little many teachers care, I may not have gone into teaching. And that would have been the even sadder consequence of the sad state of teacher priorities.

You know what the biggest problem is that people face?

That we're all such fuckin' self-centered assholes who can't seem to find it in our hearts to give enough of a shit about others that we might share problems and share in the responsibility to brainstorm and carry out solutions. We're a bunch of dicks, is the truth. And teachers, it is sad to find out, are no different in that boat (perhaps somewhat better than the self-centered behavior I encountered among adults in the multiple other jobs I had before becoming a teacher, with the exception of university and research work).

And I don't mean that in some kind of abstract way or as some kind of existential bitch. I mean that our self-centeredness is a substantive obstacle to practical resolution of so many shared problems that we face together. School reform, Middle East peace, nuclear non-proliferation, wealth equity, environmental issues, Federal budget deficits. The list goes on forever. On almost every single important issue the problem is not that we don't have ideas to resolve issues or that people have not been coerced enough (especially since that last option generally proves counterproductive, no matter how those rationalizing their own power may try to deny that reality). On almost every single important issue the problem is that we ask and demand far too much what others must do for us without any substantive thought about how issues might get resolved amidst all of our demanding, and we think far too little about how to find resolution of important issues in ways that we find common ground and give common commitment to resolving problems.

We always want someone else to fix problems. And we want them to solve them now.

And as Robert Samuelson is arguing, the public generally wants politicians to solve our problems, no matter how real or not their capacity to solve those problems might be. And, generally, politicians pass that buck along to, say, teachers, or some other group that they assign the responsibility to, and then do the same. Demand solutions without any real thought given to actual capacity and effort involved with solving problems. And teachers pass that buck on to other teachers or to parents or they blame kids or the media. And so that wheel keeps on spinning forever into oblivion. Until one or more of any of these people finally look a problem square in the eye and say, "What can I do to resolve this problem for good rather than passing it on to someone else?"

I am amazed at how lame and irresponsible and irrational most adults are, now that I am officially of their ranks. And I am persistently underwhelmed by the examples of most adults I encounter and study and follow.

The biggest problem in America is Americans, and the biggest problem with humanity is humanity. Our whiny, small-minded, petty, lame demands about how life should be with as little effort as possible given to pitching in with the hard thinking work which is where the only real solutions to any serious problem come from.

We persistently denigrate the thinking because we think it's too hard. And we persistently deal with all of the problems that this creates for us, as a consequence, and persistently pass on problems or leave them in the laps of others as much as we can get away with.

I have a team of math teachers that I watched pose and kiss ass and otherwise cover their rear ends in a meeting with administrators, yesterday, in a way that was so cowardly and so pandered to their instincts to do as little as possible for as much job protection as they can get that I wanted to throw up. I could hardly believe that these were grown people. And I lost all respect for everyone around the table, yesterday. I was arguing that we needed to face the real problems that came with a district administrator's plan to make sure we make AYP (Annual Yearly Progress) and rig the game so that we got just enough kids past the bar to keep us out of trouble. That priority I have no issue with, because the truth is that the No Child Left Behind Act is not developed with a realistic sense of progress that kids or schools can make. So finding a way to get Eisenhower out of that mess is not an issue for me. What I took issue with was these administrators and teachers wanting to do this to the almost complete exclusion of real learning that kids struggling the most -- my kids -- were engaged in (meaning, make sure they pass the bar without really making sure that they've learned anything). It was disgusting and petty and a complete abdication of real responsibility on all of their parts. And I watched at least two if not three of my team teachers completely line up behind the plan and try to treat my real concerns as if they were the ravings of a madman because the truth is that the kids that my concerns impact most are kids that these teachers don't really give much of a shit about, in the first place: my special education kids. If my kids get exposure to big math ideas, but they don't really know how to do the computations, these teachers won't lose any sleep if that means that they have a more difficult time doing practical math in their lives or if they can't get jobs because they can't do the math. They're concerned about their test scores, primarily, and my kids secondarily. Because they believe if they focus too much on my kids and their real academic needs, it might slow down their class and bring down their scores.

It's a sad and pathetic spectacle -- the human race -- much of the time. Constantly looking after ourselves at the expense of others, and then always wondering why we're such a mess.

And I just have no confidence in voters, politicians, teachers, or anyone to face those problems squarely, anymore. Because facing problems squarely and doing the thinking work involves challenging themselves in ways that most people spend an enormous amount of time and energy avoiding.

And I say: when you play that game, you get the legislatures, schools, policies, and institutions that you deserve. People don't want to do the hard thinking work to resolve important issues, then they deal with the problems unresolved until they face up.

And we will be doing that for another two years -- Democratic Congress or not -- just as Samuelson says in this article. And we will do so because the truth is we don't have the balls to face problems squarely. Because doing so means facing ourselves. And very few people want to be bothered with such a challenge.

And until we do, our country and our world will be a mess. And too fuckin' bad for us until we can face up to that fact.

Love,
Ben

Discovering the depths of cowardice

The last few years, I've been discovering the depths of cowardice amongst people I've met.

It's so sad to me to understand, better, now, how Naziism took over Germany and what fragile consciences made it possible.

It's sadder to me think that so many people satisfy themselves with such underdeveloped consciences that, were I a Jew in Nazi Germany in 1939 or so, that so many people would have turned me over to the SS to cover their asses.

Many of those people, sadly, are teachers and professors that I work with. Others are administrators. The weakest consciences, by far, are not found in education. But too many weak consciences are found in my field, sadly.

Cowardice is such a pathetic weakness to see up close. And it's more pathetic when the stakes are high and the situation really matters.

Like teaching. And politics.

Here's to a world with people who take courage more seriously than their rear ends.

Love,
Ben

Too much certainty and not enough good faith and understanding in American politics and the world

Sebastian Malaby has a great column on the lack of trust in America and a reference to Francis Fukuyama's new book, Trust, in the Washington Post, today, that I think sums up a lot of the problems in American and international politics, these days.

I've been really frustrated with the hubris of liberal journalists, activists, and politicians in America, these days. I've read liberal after liberal completely convinced of their own strategies to resolve situations in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, among other issues, these days, without a serious enough humility about the limitations of theorizing versus complicated practical realities that has me seriously appreciating principled conservatives, right now. Especially the conservative principles of prudence and an appreciation for human limitations in a world perpetually beyond human understanding.

Andrew Sullivan is the first person I turned to because I'm pretty convinced that he is perhaps the best conservative journalist in America, right now, and is working on being one of the finest conservative thinkers in the world with his new book, The Soul of Conservativism, where he is attempting to craft an organized theory of conservative ideas and ideals that looks very promising, right now.

This recent entry citing Ghandi epitomizes why I appreciate Andrew so much.

On so many issues, Andrew's thinking and mine are fairly indistinguishable. Hate crimes against gays and African Americans and women (Andrew is gay and has been diagnosed with AIDS since 1993) are terrible things. But they also criminalize thought (while a violent or non-violent crime already exists to cover violence or destruction of property), which is a more serious problem than the hate crime, itself. Campaign finance reform is a laudable goal with a ineffective and unconstitutional means. Faith and reason are not only consistent, they are inseparable, in reality.

Andrew's consistent criticism of the Administration on its conduct of the war very early on, while supporting the President and the troops in a successful mission, his criticism of the President around its torture policies, and his support for John Kerry in the 2004 election are very powerful indicators of just how long Andrew has understood how seriously the Administration has misunderstood its position in Iraq.

I have work to do and don't have the time to go into all of Andrew's virtues as a human being or over the course of this war or his more libertarian conservative tendencies that I share, but suffice it to say that I think Andrew is perhaps one of the most principled and decent conservatives in America and in the world, today.

George Will is another favorite of mine. Andrew calls him "the best conservative writer in America today." I think George is most certainly among the best if not the best conservative journalist in the America, today. But I think Andrew may be a slightly more powerful thinker of the two. Francis Fukuyama and is one of the finest conservative thinkers I know. Francis is a policy scholar with some really powerful original policy work, e.g. multi-multilateralism. David Gergen is one of the most principled conservative thinkers and political advisors I have ever come across, with tenures in Democratic and Republican Administrations and with serious insight into American and international politics. I've always suspected that John Keegan, who is one of the finest military historians I've ever read, is a conservative, though I have never read any of his work that openly acknowledges my assumption and suspicion, and realize, today, that he, like I, may want to be thought of as an independent thinker more than an one with a particular ideological commitment. George Will and Andrew Sullivan are two of finest conservative thinkers and writers I know in America and beyond and are two of the finest thinkers and writers, period, that I know.

George's recent pieces, The Triumph of Unrealism, Questions to Guide an Exit Policy, and Togetherness in Baghdad are three of the most powerful I have seen written about the war in recent months.

William F. Buckley is another very important conservative journalist, thinker, and writer, as is John Derbyshire, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer (though Charles' arrogance has always seriously put me off), and a million other conservative journalists and thinkers that I don't have time to reference, right now, since I'm working on deadlines.

Sebastian Malaby is a liberal whose columns have impressed me lately and there a million other liberals besides him. And Peter Beinart, of The New Republic, always has great things to say. Benjamin Barber is one of the finest international policy scholars in the business.

But right now is a period of serious hubris on the part of liberals as they are swooping in for a election upset and as their analysis gets distorted by their desire to force conservatives out of office.

If only liberals had all the answers. Or conservatives, for that matter. It would make this election and every election so much easier, wouldn't it? It would life so much easier, wouldn't it?

Alas, that world does not exist. And believing that it does is often more dangerous the plain fact that it doesn't.

I have identified as a liberal most of my life, so I think it's particularly important to criticize liberals when they are most power-hungry. I'm not a liberal, exclusively, these days, any more than I am a Christian, exclusively, these days. I am a liberal and a conservative and a Christian and a Jew and a Buddhist and a Hindu and a Muslim and an agnostic and an atheist and a secular humanist and whatever ideas that I damn well please to draw from.

I am an independent thinker, first and foremost. And a human being who identifies with and cares about other human being before that.

But when I read yet another arrogant liberal column about the war in Iraq and how much better liberals know what to do with that mess of a situation -- this most recent Trudy Rubin piece is case in point -- which they so plainly don't, necessarily, though there are many fine liberals and conservatives who have many good and not so good ideas about how to improve the situation in Iraq...

It all makes me seriously appreciate thoughtful conservatives like Andrew and George who, unlike Trudy Rubin or David Ignatius, at least have the balls to say that they don't necessarily know what to do to make the situation in Iraq better, but that thinking about how to improve the situation is a commitment that people can feel no matter what ideological gods they worship.

There are far too many great liberal thinkers and writers out there to count. Joe Nye is perhaps the best international policy scholar I have ever read. Amartya Sen is not only a Nobel Prize winning economist, he is one of the finest writers on international issues I have ever read. And Abraham Maslow, though dead, had as much influence on my thinking as any living liberal or otherwise writer. And Desmond Tutu is one the most thoughtful liberal leaders of this generation, I believe.

But the hubris of too many liberal writers, activists, and politicians, right now, in the efforts to check the hubris of the conservative Administration, but to offer very few substantial ideas to constructively deal with the problems they face -- other than to rationalize a liberal or Democratic take-over -- is really out of control, right now.

So it's nice to take a moment and appreciate why it is so important to have principled conservatives as well as liberals contributing to the public discussion, right now.

Good faith and understanding are in seriously short supply in America politics, right now. The wells of good faith are growing, but they are surrounded by a desert of cynicism and hubris and shortsightedness fueled by a far too confident commitment to pressure and force and superior power to resolve serious problems in the world. Democrats are eagerly awaiting a taste of that superior power, undaunted by a Republican party whose capture of power in all three branches of the U.S. government were unable to tackle successfully most of the very serious issues that they care about resolving. Democrats and liberals are better people, goes the reasoning. They aren't as corrupt. They aren't as rich. They know which power works and which power doesn't. And a million other rationalizations for power -- whether it resolves problems or not -- that liberals and Democrats are engaged in, right now -- which ignores the plain fact that, like every other period in humanity's history, this is a period of dissolving and disintegrating power, not force as a final solution.

Like the Roman Empire of antiquity, Great Britain at the beginning of the 20th century, and the Soviet Union at the turn of the 21st century (without equivocation between a power whose debates and traditions introduced the world to principles of civilization and protections for individual rights and a state committed to its own power over and above the freedom of its citizens), the United States is facing a dissolution of its power in world politics, as is the capacity for any group or government to willfully and arbitrarily use force to advance particular causes.

Such a dissolution doesn't mean that the United States is impotent in the field of international policy. It means that its power is derived from exactly where it should be derived: its ideals and its ideas. Force is a capacity that has power insofar as it is animated by better ideas about its use and about its limitations, including and especially a recognition that it should be used as little as possible, not as a bludgeoning tool to be wielded with every good (or bad) cause.

I have a lot to do and not enough time to elaborate on this, right now. But suffice it to say that I'm thinking a lot about our lack of humility in our own capabilities and our lack of faith in the good intentions of others, right now.

Conservatives are being appropriately humbled, right now, by the failures of this Administration and by a conservative monopoly on Federal power in America to resolve so many problems that conservatives care about.

Liberals are now also in need of a serious humbling. And their hubris is discouraging in the face of such serious problems in need of more humble and deeply considered thought rather than all-too-certain strategies for forcing our way to victory.

We need more humility and faith and understanding in politics and in the world, right now. Without it, we will continue to make similar mistakes as this Administration and as is par for the course for humanity in the face of deeply misunderstood challenges.

It is nice to note that many, many thinkers, right now, are working in that direction.

Love,
Ben

Faith and reason

Andrew Sullivan writes a really beautiful piece on faith and reason I thought worth reposting and in advance of his new book, The Soul of Conservativism, that I will definitely be checking out the next time I am in the bookstore.

Listening to Jesus

Money quote, as Andrew would say, from the fifth chapter of his book:

"The message of the Gospels seems to me to be constantly returning to this theme: those who set themselves up as arbiters of moral correctness, the men of the book, the Pharisees, are often the furthest from God. Rules can only go so far; love does the rest. And the rest is by far the most important part. Jesus of Nazareth constantly tells his fellow human beings to let go of law and let love happen: to let go of the pursuit of certainty, to let go of possessions, to let go of pride, to let go of reputation and ambition, to let go also of obsessing about laws and doctrines. This letting go is what the fundamentalist fears the most. To him, it implies chaos, disorder, anarchy. To Jesus, it is the beginning of wisdom, and the prerequisite of love."

Brilliant:).

Love,
Ben

Forgiving Brandi

I had a dream, tonight, that woke me up. So I'm writing.

I saw Brandi, again, for the first time in a long time. We were hanging out, being fairly friendly. I asked her why she stopped talking to me. She said, "We were on a path alone together," a reference to a beautiful Dar Williams song called February about the souring of a relationship.

I am currently engaged in one of the more difficult efforts of my life.

Forgiving Brandi.

Forgiveness is work. It can be tough work, depending on how recent and sore the wound is.

This work is hard, right now, because the wound is fresh and deep. Brandi was my closest friend just 5 years ago. And she had been my best friend for five years previous to that.

I want to say we dated, and that was the mistake. But that's not true. Plenty of people date and come out friends on the other side of that.

Brandi just kind of arbitrarily decided that she wasn't going to be friends. She says it has nothing to do with her marriage or her husband. It's just an arbitrary decision on her own part. "We're not in the same place," she says. She says she holds no grudge. Meaning, "I've decided to stop being your friend, but I'm not going to tell you why."

It's arbitrary and lame. It's one of the lamer choices Brandi has made, and she has made some doozies in the last couple of years.

I've forgiven a lot in my lifetime, so this too shall pass. It's just really, really painful, right now, because Brandi was someone I trusted more than most people. It's embarrassing to have strangers win your trust and then abuse it. It's far more painful to have friends and people close to you prove unworthy of trust and take no responsibility. Brandi was someone I trusted implicitly. It was a mistake, it seems. Either that, or Brandi just has a lot of reflection and responsibility to take about why she's behaved so lamely over the last couple of years. Guilt? Maybe. Who knows. I just know it hurts, right now.

I'm not the type of person, at all, who likes to hold onto pain or to engage in recrimination. People fuck up. Even cynically expecting forgiveness. They abuse trust. It's a part of life. I've done it a million times. And I forgive as I would want to be forgiven.

And I've watched a million people act badly out of guilt, as I am betting, right now, is motivating Brandi's behavior. I hope Brandi got married for the right reasons. I have all kinds of reasons to think that she didn't, and her most recent behavior only deepens that suspicion for me. And I think it's likely that she's treating me badly to avoid facing up. I've seen it a million times. I could be wrong. But I don't have a better explanation, right now. And Brandi offers none.

Pain is a part of life. It's not fun to go through. But it is a natural and necessary part of any relationship, friendship, family, or love. Pain is a part of love. And letting it go is a part of making love available to ourselves and to others. Holding onto pain and bitterness makes us less able to share love, and others less able and willing to share love with us.

I've never understood why people hold onto pain. It doesn't serve them or anyone else. Bitterness and recrimination serve noone. Not even ourselves, sadly. They undermine all of us. And are responsible, in their ugliest forms, for the worst crimes that humanity has to offer.

So I've got no reason to hold onto this pain. It's just fresh and deep. Because I trusted Brandi more than most people. And for whatever reasons, she has stomped all over my heart these last few years.

When Brandi and I were dating and after we broke up, I asked, at separate times, for Brandi to make two promises to me.

When we first started dating, I asked Brandi to promise that if we ever fell out of love, that we fall back in love again. It was a sweet and beautiful promise requested by a young man deeply in love.

Not living up to that promise is understandable. Many people make a go of a relationship and can't find it in themselves to make a second go.

When Brandi and I broke up, I asked and Brandi promised that we would not stop being friends or talking just because we started dating other people. Brandi and I had been best friends for more than a year with no sexual or relationship interest before we had started dating, after all. So it was important to me and I thought important to her, at the time, to maintain that friendship. For whatever reasons, it turns it was not so terribly important to Brandi, sadly.

Breaking that second promise is still understandable, in light of Brandi's marriage. Except that Brandi has said that this isn't the reason that she has broken off communication. So now it becomes less understandable and more arbitrary.

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter how badly we are hurt or for what reasons. Forgiveness is always the only way forward. And when we give up on forgiveness, we give up on experiencing love fully in our lives. It's a foolish, foolish tradeoff that far too many people engage in, taking love for granted and the particular joy that it brings to life.

It's perfectly clear looking at the world, today, that so many people -- perhaps the majority -- give up on forgiveness and love, in this way. It's just the most tragic mistake that people can make, I think. Hubris is a serious mistake. But giving up on love, and the forgiveness that is at its heart, is the most tragic. Because love, true love, is one of life's rarer joys.

And because the bitterness that is the alternative serves noone. Not even ourselves.

I guess it's true that time will heal this wound as it heals all wounds. But working at it is important too. It just still feels fresh.

Maybe if I spend some time remembering the loving person I once knew, I'll feel better.

Love,
Ben