Stuck in the Middle: Democrats Leave Progress Behind
By Gary Yeritsian
I often find in USC political circles that student activists hold many illusions about the Democratic Party. They will rightly criticize the Bush administration and Republicans, as quickly as they will declare their faith in the Democrats as the solution to this country’s innumerable political problems. What is obviously lacking in this standard conclusion is an understanding of what policies the Democrats actually support and how they operate within the two-party system. In light of the fact that the Presidential primaries and election are quickly approaching, a true understanding is imperative.
Since the most pressing issue at present is the war on Iraq, it is worth looking at what kind of “exit strategies” the leading Democratic candidates are advocating. We often hear that the Democrats are going to withdraw from Iraq. However, in a recent debate, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton all refused to pledge to pull out all US forces from the country by the end of their first presidential term (in 2013!). It need not be emphasized how different this is from the principled calls put forward by the antiwar movement for a full and immediate U.S. withdrawal from an unjust and immoral war.
However, the Democrats don’t hold antiwar principles; their disagreements with the Bush administration have more to do with tactics rather than principles. (After all, the debilitating sanctions imposed against Iraq by the Clinton administration killed as many or more civilians than Bush’s war—hardly a principled policy.) They feel that the war, including the recent “surge” policy, has harmed US “national interests”, that is, elite strategic and economic interests. They are looking to draw down troop levels while still maintaining significant numbers of forces and bases in the country. Part of their strategy includes moving to a heightened air war—which is actually already happening—in the same way that the US did when it was losing in Vietnam.
Another frightening parallel to Vietnam also deserves mention here; the threat that the US, failing in Iraq, will actually expand the war into Iran (just as the Nixon administration bombed Cambodia and Laos). This could bring about a catastrophic humanitarian and environmental disaster—especially if the US targets Iran’s nuclear plants—and would spread chaos in the region. We would expect that, if they don’t plan to end the war on Iraq, then at least the Democrats would be opposed to initiating military action against another Middle Eastern state.
This doesn’t square with reality, however. In fact, the three leading candidates have declared that “all options are on the table” with regard to Iran, a statement essentially constituting a veiled threat of war. Obama, the current darling of college liberals, stated in 2004 that the US should consider carrying out air strikes against Iran. How could a progressive, antiwar person of conscience support candidates who take such irresponsible and militarist stances on questions of US foreign affairs?
It should also be noted that none of these leading Democrats offer any substantive change when it comes to the US’s unconditional support of Israel’s oppressive policies toward the Palestinians. This is not just, as some progressives wrongly claim, the product of the machinations of the Israel lobby. Instead, these politicians see Israel as playing an important role in terms of the maintenance of US imperial interests in the Middle East; their policy proposals vis-à-vis Israel-Palestine fit in with their general schemes to rescue the US empire from its currently precarious strategic position.
Some readers might argue that, while there are problems in the Democrats’ positions on foreign issues, at least they stand for real change on the domestic front. Again, such readers need to examine the facts. In the only advanced industrialized country lacking a publicly funded healthcare system, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, all stand for the continuation of for-profit healthcare. Their proposals for “universal healthcare” basically come down to legally mandating that everyone purchase a health plan from a private provider.
But this hardly deals with the profound problems of the US health care system; as Michael Moore demonstrates in his documentary “Sicko”, the issue is not only that many people lack health insurance but also that those who have insurance often receive totally inadequate coverage and are swamped with fees and payments. The reason? A for-profit healthcare system means that insurance companies make their profits by denying people care. The Democrats have no plans to challenge the power of these companies; they differ quite markedly with the views of the majority of Americans who, according to polls, believe that health care is a human right that should be publicly funded and protected.
Another social issue that has been the subject of much controversy of late has been immigrant rights. In elite sectors, that is to say, in Congress and in the media, the debate has been largely restricted to two positions: the far-right Sensenbrenner doctrine advocating mass criminalization and deportation, and the more centrist, yet still very punitive plan to create a “guest-worker” program (generally linked with a plan to build a “border fence”). Instead of advocating for the right of the over 12 million undocumented workers in the United States to legal and citizenship rights, leading Democrats have aligned themselves with one proposal or another that denies justice and equality to immigrants.
In this overview of the Democrats’ positions on a range of pressing social issues, it is important to add that not all party representatives share the above positions. Indeed, the “on-the-ground” Democratic base is significantly to the left of the leadership, and there are several well-known progressive Democratic politicians making their voices heard on these questions, among the most prominent of them being Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. As left-wing columnist Sharon Smith has written, “Kucinich stands alone among the current crop of candidates in his consistently principled stand on issues ranging from opposition to the war in Iraq to support for single-payer health care, immigrant rights and the legalization of gay marriage.” An important question arises, though: can the Democratic Party ever be a party in which progressives like Kucinich dominate and pro-war centrists like Clinton are relegated to the margins? According to Smith, it can’t: “Kucinich [has compromised] his principles in one crucial respect. He remains beholden to the Democrats–a ruling-class, imperialist party that coexists in a power-sharing arrangement with the Republicans.”
Indeed, it is vital for progressives to separate themselves from the ‘lesser-evilist’ politics historically embodied by the Democratic Party and the two-party duopoly of which it is a vital component. It is time to move beyond a narrow concentration on the realm of electoral politics, and focus more on building independent, militant, and democratic grassroots movements working to further the cause of social justice on a number of fronts, including winning rights for immigrants, establishing a public healthcare system, and stopping the war.
Iran Away From Home
by Andrew Goldman
“Death to Israel!” chants Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a throng of followers. I found this year-old Iranian television broadcast on YouTube after hearing about the Iranian president’s visit to the United States. Suffice it to say, he comes off as rather hateful and unreasonable. His tastefully-dressed and well-groomed appearance combined with his conniving agitprop seems to suggest the 21st century professional version of a hate monger. This was the context in which I approached the president’s presentation to Columbia University last Monday.
This event sparked a great deal of reasonable controversy: Does it legitimize Ahmadinejad’s views to host him as a speaker at a major United States university, or does it act as a proper forum to attack them just as any academe’s theories are questioned? Lee Bollinger, president of the university, seemed to believe the latter as he went ahead with the event. In fact, consistent with this view, John Coatsworth, the dean of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, claimed he would have invited Hitler had he been a current world leader.
First of all, kudos to Lee Bollinger and Columbia. What a bold move. What better forum is there than academia to grill a fanatic (let alone politicians in general) with probing and hardball questions. And while Ahmadinejad’s views may be unjustified, hateful, and nonsensical, it does not endorse his views ipso facto by inviting him to the table. Now, speaking at an Ivy League college does carry a certain amount of prestige which should not be casually awarded—but like it or not, Ahmadinejad is a major world figure—who perhaps thusly deserves world-class interrogation. Satisfyingly so, Lee Bollinger began the event with an incredibly hard-hitting and breath-taking speech criticizing the Iranian leader—which, by the way, took as much time as Ahmadinejad himself was allotted to speak.
Ahmadinejad’s own speech was nothing particularly startling; he covered his agenda of criticizing western monopolization and abuse of science, denying (or “calling for further research about”) the Holocaust, all the while framing himself as a clean-cut smooth-talking academe (rhetorician?) guided by the pure brilliance of science. Talk about a wolf in professor’s clothing. The microphone was then turned over to Dean John Coatsworth for a question-and-answer session.
This brings me to my next point. What the hell happened John Coatsworth!? This was your chance! After Ahmadinejad was allowed to give his shtick, you had the opportunity to destroy him with questions!!! Instead, Ahmadinejad was allowed to maneuver out of responding to crucial concerns like “Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?” and “Why are you executing homosexuals?” The American media would never actually squeeze an answer out of a politician—it seems that has become the responsibility of intellectuals. A man who holds as much attention as Ahmadinejad needs to be taken down a notch. The less he is questioned, the more legitimate he seems.
To be fair, Coatsworth did ask for clearer responses to some of the questions—but why couldn’t they have an outright argument? The event was a major opportunity to absolutely CRUSH Ahmadinejad with facts and logic—the grand scintillating beacons of science which he himself claims as guides—in front of the world audience. I wanted to see some scholarly gore! I never see that on TV…In a big way, Columbia University could have done a lot more to wash away the noisome rhetoric and expose the simply unjustifiable opinions of, as Bollinger put it, a “petty dictator.”
According to Keyvan Mehrabi, president of USC’s own Persian Student Association, the forum afforded Ahmadinejad another opportunity to avoid being confronted about his despicable human rights record. Mehrabi reminded me that, indeed, Ahmadinejad actually holds very little political power according to the political system of Iran, and acts more of a figurehead dispatched by the Ayatollah and clerics to garner sympathy and pity through Western criticism. “Ahmadinejad condescends about human rights, and governmental chauvinistic arrogance, to gain sympathy through the current global anti-Bush fervor. Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic of Iran is flagrantly and incomparably violating human rights left and right, especially with the Baha’i religious minority. Ahmadinejad is a hypocrite, simple and plain”
Before I heard Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia, I honestly was curious about what he had to say—as if he could offer meaningful insight into Western culture. In fact, I wrote a letter to the editor in another publication urging students to keep an open mind in order to sort out his valid criticism of our nation from the trash. After watching him speak, however, I am embarrassed to have written such a thing. Now, I always believe that people should have a chance to speak—which is why I generally support his presence at Columbia in the first place, and which is why I earnestly lent him my ear. Ahmadinejad to me now has lost all credibility as a public figure. He used cheap rhetorical tactics and abused science and reason (my babies!) as he claimed homosexuals do not exist in his country and the Holocaust needs more research from “different perspectives.” (What the hell does that mean, anyway?). I’m not convinced.
So, fine. He had his chance—it was a big shindig—and now, he’ll walk away with a little bit of Bollinger’s truth staining his suit jacket (it’ll wash out). I wish they had destroyed his arguments—but, oh well. In the mean time, you won’t be fooled, right? Somehow, his saccharine statement that “Iran loves all nations” does not seem to match up with that YouTube video I saw.
Contact Andrew at ajgoldma@usc.edu
Quit Stalling and Come OUT
Whenever someone’s sexuality is in question, we - the government, the people and all facets in between comprising our American society - seem to be completely enraptured and absolutely titillated by the idea of an unexpected (yet secretly anticipated) same sex encounter, especially if it involves any sort of public or governmental figurehead. Today’s media thrives on the shallow entertainment value of these stories, but does little to provide a critical examination of their true nature.
Since Senator Craig’s private behavior went public, the top priority of the media has been to churn out witty turns of phrases and cheap remarks to further belittle him as a person and his sexuality. The public has followed suit as blogs and YouTube videos, like “Senator Larry Craig’s Men’s Room Guide to Sex Signals”, flood the internet. With more than enough time invested into condemning and scrutinizing the senator, the real questions go unanswered time and time again.
What would motivate any respected, high-paid, seemingly well-off married government official to compromise everything he is and has made of himself for the chance of having his penis caressed and jerked by some anonymous individual?
I know it’s nearly impossible at the moment to say the word cruising without having Senator Craig come to mind along with terms such as “bathroom stall” and “homosexual.” But I can guarantee you, despite media reports, that a gay identity is not established, nor even related, to sex in a public restroom.
I bring up the controversy surrounding the Senator to highlight an issue that all too often has gone unaccounted for in stories similar to this: basic human rights. As Americans, we enjoy the right to ask questions and to behave as we see fit as long as it does not harm others. In line with this is the right to engage in consensual sexual behavior without criticism or condemnation from anyone, regardless of sexual preference. These are rights humans should have and, frankly, deserve. But as stories like this show, we lack the required honest, tolerant, and liberated society supportive of the diverse people it claims to welcome, for these rights to be protected. Rather than criticize the Senator, or even cruisers, it is necessary and constructive to examine why people cruise.
USC professor of History, Anthropology, and Gender Studies Walter Williams believes that, “…these people have been heavily intimidated by their environment and led to believe in institutions that condemn their basic human attractions and desires. It’s all they’ve known since birth. It’s all they believe in to such an extent that they’d put their reputations on the line for a chance to satisfy what they’ve been taught is a completely wrong, immoral, and disgusting desire.”
There is a well-defined social stigma in place for those choosing to engage in homosexual activity. Its harmful effects can be seen in those who, left without choice, do something our conservative society thinks does not fit into the mold of the stereotyped and worshipped heterosexual American. Williams points out, “Openly gay people have a lot more opportunities to meet other people in a gay community setting rather than, say… the basement floor of Doheny Library. Many people that cruise do so because they would not be caught dead at a gay bar or any gay venue or function.”
Senator Craig’s situation is not a scandal. A classic sociological study conducted by Professor Laud Humphreys’ of 150 cruisers shows that many of the men studied were in fact married to women and usually quite conservative in their political stance and their general attitudes. Quite often they were actively involved in organizations that were explicitly anti-gay. By observing how often leaders in the Republican Party, religious leaders in churches, and other conservatives have been accused of even worse similar behavior, it seems like there is a steady stream of this happening.
Williams also believes, “It’s not so much a question of ‘Did he ask an undercover policeman to engage in deviant homosexual activity in a restroom at an airport?’ but, rather, what does this say about the hypocrisy of an elected official?’” It says we are surrounded by a backwards government thriving in its hypocrisy. Our law makers are creating a double standard while at the same time demeaning people of certain sexuality. It’s not the “gays” deceiving their wives, families, and country. It is, more often than not, conservative, closeted individuals.
Condemnatory religion constantly trying to run the government makes cruising inevitable. It’s a homophobic government that even today will tell people their behavior is immoral for wanting to do something completely rational and even natural that perpetuates cruising. It’s the media making pariahs of those who yearn for a partner of the same sex and it’s the public that eats up these stories and treats those they know who are homosexuals differently, whether for better or worse. These influences have turned our country itself into a closeted society afraid to examine its realities.
In the USA we are label crazy. When it comes to someone having a raw, basic desire to experiment sexually with members of the same sex, labeling anyone based off this is just plain ignorance, but we still do it. People like Senator Craig have to cruise because desiring someone of the same sex will all of a sudden make him less of a person and more of a label and category regardless of how he feels. People are not simply one way or the other. Yet, instead of people coming to terms with themselves and natural curiosities, we embed all of our preconceived hate and fears into embarrassing one man, and won’t rest until his reputation is completely diminished.
It’s a personal tragedy because when it all comes down to it, as Williams so accurately puts it, “Senator Craig was arrested for personal behavior that itself is not illegal…the hypocrisy of this all is mind-blowing. How long are we as Americans going to keep seeing all these things as a scandal? Just one government official devoting his entire career to criminalizing something that he secretly engages in and that is really a common feeling and natural desire to so much of our country’s population should be enough of a wake-up call.”
It should have also been more than enough of a wake-up call when our government paid a policeman, with our tax dollars, to sit on the toilet waiting for a man to come by just so he could humiliate him. How many wake-up calls are necessary until we stop our society from ignorantly choosing our identities for us just so the media and the government can turn around and exploit them for all they’re worth?
Contact Benjamin at Bsrodrig@usc.edu
0 Responses to “Politics”