...and then he gets up and makes a speech that reinvigorates not only your confidence but your excitement, not only for this presidency but for this nation.
President Obama hit the right notes last night, acknowledging some of the missteps of his administration's first year while cataloging its achievements, and reminding us that he assumed office in the midst of numerous catastrophes wrought by his predecessor. (Some people think it's time to stop making this point; I feel, on the other hand, that the next ten presidents can safely point to the George W. Bush administration as an explanation for shortcomings.) He was articulate; he was argumentative; he was even funny. And he exhibited the defiant, fighting spirit we've all been wanting to see.
But it's no revelation that Obama knows how to give a great speech. Not only that -- he has a singular genius for using a speech to address or dispel the specific political challenges of the moment, whether it's his landmark Philadelphia speech on race during the election (which effectively ended his Jeremiah Wright problems), his acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic Convention (which showed he was as good at proposing policy solutions as he was at delivering inspiring rhetoric), or his address to Congress on the subject of health care reform (which sounded great at the time, even though the ambitions it outlined have been at least partially derailed). The question is whether telling us what we want to hear will now lead to doing what we want done.
Bones were thrown to conservatives, with nods to tort reform, tax cuts, border security, and nuclear (pronounced correctly) power. And there was more of the let's-be-bipartisan rhetoric which has made me ill in the past. Even as Obama persisted in this, the Republicans sat on their hands, refusing to applaud for anything until fairly late in the speech, by which time it was obvious even to them that they looked like assholes. Obama came prepared for their surliness. "I thought I'd get some applause on that one," he quipped, after the Republicans failed to acknowledge his administration's record on cutting taxes. When he talked about his proposed spending freeze -- a cheap political gimmick which cannot be good for the economy, and perhaps the greatest disappointment of the last week -- and added that it would take effect next year, the right-wingers scoffed and chortled. "That's how budgeting works," Obama ad-libbed, in a tone one might take with a six-year-old child. He should have said it slower.
It's incredible to think about what this president could achieve if he had a less angry, less jittery Congress to work with. But he doesn't. He has some outstanding allies on the Hill, but not enough. The opposing party -- and far too much of his own party -- is against progress. Obama's first State of the Union address demonstrated that his vision for America remains hopeful, progressive, and strong. But his willingness to work with the Republicans, rather than plow right through them and actually realize that vision, is looking sillier and more dangerous than ever.
The political scene is full of inveterate spinners and graveyard whistlers who are so intent on appearing triumphant that they can never acknowledge defeat. The Massachusetts special election hadn't even concluded before Democratic voices sounded everywhere, saying, "It's actually great that we're going to lose this one...everything is going according to our plan!"
Some of these arguments have been fairly convincing. Even I said that it might be a blessing in disguise, and more astute commentators pointed out that if Bill Clinton had gotten a harbinger of the 1994 midterm climate with a special election in January, he might have embarked on the kind of "course correction" the Obama administration is attempting right now, and maybe the nation could have been spared the so-called Gingrich Revolution.
I don't want to get too falsely happy at what is a pretty dire time for the progressive agenda -- the Supreme Court has just dramatically tilted all future elections toward corporate interests, and even the lackluster health care reform described in the Senate bill is now in serious jeopardy -- but in spite of this, I do feel a sort of renewal of the surging hope we felt at the beginning of President Obama's term. Partly, this comes from the President himself -- not just in the return of populist rhetoric, but in actual financial regulatory reform.
We'll get to find out a few things about the "Tea Party" movement (I use the quotes because of the movement's striking misreading of the Boston Tea Party). If this supposed groundswell of populist rage is really about Wall Street and the banks, I'm sure they'll support Obama's rational, tangible efforts to reform the financial giants who caused the Great Recession. I'm sure they'll show up in droves this November to vote out the Republicans, who have spent the last week praising the Supreme Court for giving corporations unprecedented influence on our political process, and attacking the administration for attacking banks. If they don't, then at least we'll know conclusively that the "Tea Party" bellowers are motivated not by economic concerns but by ignorance and racism.
There's something refreshing going on in the liberal echo chamber as well. On Thursday night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart delivered a parody of Keith Olbermann which was savage, brilliant, and not unfair; Olbermann, with class and humility, responded by playing Stewart's "Special Comment" in its entirety on Countdown, after which Olbermann said simply: "You're right. I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry."
Perhaps we on the left should all take a cue from Jon Stewart: Let's not forget to hold people we agree with to the same standards as those who we oppose. And we should also take a cue from Keith Olbermann: Let's not fall so in love with the sounds of our own voices that we lose our perspective and our ability to take, and be taken, seriously.
And, to invoke one more liberal role model, we can also learn something from Barack Obama: Winning is just the beginning.
Great post, Noah -- as usual, you've really cut through and into some nuances being missed in all the sound and fury. I do hope we'll see course correction -- which would be no small feat, given our current direction.
I was thinking too that the other thing missing in the Olberman ad-hominem verbal beat-down of Brown was substance. Brown isn't irresponsible for swearing in a high school assembly but because he is a remorseless fear-mongerer around the war on terror. This guy's major idea is MORE WAR! Including war on "the (working class) people" he lyrically invokes. Demagogy in the buff?
On the other hand, if Coaxley had won, and this healthcare reform had a better chance of passing, would this be a "progressive" or "left" victory? I'm 39 and my twin brother doesn't have health care, but I don't see how the current bill would help him very much. Not nearly as much as it would help big pharma. Is this bill " a start" as many convincingly argue, or a dead end, as others convincingly argue. I don't know. Speaking of hope, I hope the dems start listening to people like you who have been advising that bipartisanship is the problem, not the solution. There's no compromising enough for corporations and the ill-informed people they spin to death.
Thanks, Jon...I couldn't agree more about the legitimate grounds for criticizing Scott Brown, and how they invalidate the lesser squabbles. (Though I do think it's worth noting that the Republicans' latest heavyweight, when asked if he would do any sightseeing in D.C., said, "I'm a history buff. I love the Museum of Natural History.") The far right has no choice but to take cheap shots, but unlike them, we're coherent on the issues.
Ha!! The Museum of Natural History. That's a good one. That's so old school, too! Like Quayle wishing he had studied Latin harder before his trip to Latin America.
Of course, we know that many of these tragic clowns have very intelligent, articulate and lethal managers.
Nice, Noah. I saw Stewart's piece, but missed Olbermann's response. I like the perspective in which you place it. And here's hoping Obama really did receive a wake-up call, and that he...WAKES UP.
Well, maybe it's a blessing in disguise. The saddest thing about the victory of Scott Brown (if that is his name) over Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts special senatorial election is that it mattered as much as it did. Anyone unfamiliar with the current American political landscape would have thought the Republicans had won a majority in the Senate. But of course, nothing like that happened. Once they swear this guy in, the Democrats will still have 59 seats -- a comfortable majority which should be able to get things done. But no -- because the Democrats are buying into this absurd 60-vote "filibuster-proof" requirement, even though Obama's predecessor had no problem remaking the country in his image, and he never had a majority as large as what the Democrats have now.
But maybe it's a blessing in disguise. Maybe it's a wake-up call which will show the Democrats that a staggering midterm loss later this year is possible. But I'm not holding my breath. I knew that President Obama wouldn't be able to keep all his campaign promises, but there was one that I was really hoping he wouldn't keep: His constant, depressing promise to "work across the aisle" with his "Republican friends." If one thing has been clear from the moment Obama's term began, it's that he has no Republican friends, that the Republicans are unwilling to be worked with, and that the change we voted for can't possibly be achieved unless the Republicans in Congress are treated like the backward, know-nothing obstructionists they are.
The loss of Ted Kennedy's seat says less about Obama than it does about the voters of Massachusetts (and probably the rest of the country, too). I don't think it has much to do with Scott Brown being a good candidate (he's clearly an asshole and probably an idiot) or Martha Coakley being a bad candidate (apparently she doesn't know quite enough about baseball). Last night's tragedy seems, like so much about the current political landscape, rooted in anger. But it's useless, destructive anger, fueled by high unemployment and a rough economy; and it's ignorant anger. No rational, informed citizen would vote, in effect, to destroy health care reform out of concern for the economy.
Whatever Democrats do to try to pass health care reform in light of this new development, it's something they should have done before they lost their sixtieth vote. They should have done it before they got their sixtieth vote, with the late ascension of Al Franken. Maybe the prospect of sixty votes was the worst thing for a party that's always been too timid. How would the last year have gone if the 2008 election had given them a majority of 55, say, instead of 59 or 60? Whatever they do -- and I hope they do it -- it's going to be a much weaker move now than it would have been then.
The comedy of Brown's victory was hard to miss. At his victory party, supporters were shouting, "Forty-one! Forty-one! Forty-one!" They were that excited about having not close to half the Senate. The mythology of the sixty-vote majority has come this far. They were also shouting, "John Kerry's next! John Kerry's next!" That would have been funny too, except that when the cable news cut to footage of a Coakley campaign event, there was John Kerry -- on crutches. This was because of his recent hip surgery, but it made an unsettling metaphor.
America's biggest problem, obviously, is the Republican Party -- but that has been true for many decades. Its second-biggest problem is Congressional Democrats, who even in light of Bush's wanton destruction and Obama's historic victory seem constitutionally incapable of the bold, decisive leadership they're always talking about. And then the buck has to stop somewhere. The change we can believe in is going to have to come from President Obama, and if he's going to be the great president he so clearly can be, he'll have to do what's counterintuitive for any politician, especially one who wants to be loved: Tell forty percent of the country to shut up and get out of the way. There's a lot of serious work to be done.
I found this tonight in an old journal. It was written on September 11, 2001. I am including only an excerpt because I am too ashamed of some of the things I wrote down that day to repeat them.
"I think that this is the first time my convictions have truly been tested. I can't remember if I'm for the death penalty or not, whether retaliation is evil or necessary, if I believe in the good of war. Am I really a member of the peace movement? What the **** is a peace movement?
...I don't know if this is the 'anger' stage of grief or what, but I want blood. I want retaliation. I want to kill them, and I want to see pictures of those assholes dead and buried in rubble or crying for their loved ones. I want to hear them screaming...
...These people kill people for no ******* reason and now they've killed my people in my city and I am ******* pissed off."
Wow. I was so torn apart I could not see anything beyond my own anger. I wanted to kill people, to see people die. I really, really did. They were overwhelming feelings - irrational, hormonal, primal. And I am very grateful that they diminished over time.
I don't have the desire to watch random people die anymore. I don't want blood. I still want to catch bin Laden - because he's a criminal. Not out of some adrenaline-fueled vengeful patriotism.
As Noah points out, the way I was feeling that day is the way people like Glenn Beck want us to feel all the time. Terrified. And 100% willing to fall behind any decision our leader makes. This is what people tend to do in times of extreme crisis. They want us in crisis mode.
But we are lucky enough to live in a place where we don't have to be terrified all the time. What a luxury to have the safety and comfort to actually think about issues and policy rather than having to spend every second simply struggling for survival like many others do.
I am still angry about what happened on September 11th. I don't like seeing video or photos from that day, it makes me sick. I have recurring dreams about airplanes falling out of the sky. It is not something I will forget. And I'll never forget how very, very scared I was.
It seems to me that the people always so ready to preach the glories of America are the same ones who are scared all the time. They appear to have such confidence in a country that they're continuously claiming is on the brink of disaster because of one issue or another.
Maybe the greatness of our country lies in the opportunity it gives its citizens to think rationally, to make educated and thoughtful decisions. We really have been given a great responsibility. We get to decide who speaks with our voice and what they're saying on our behalf. And to squander that remarkable opportunity on some vendetta is, in my opinion, ********.
This sort of thing fascinates me because I think it starts the excavating process into what keeps this war cycle going, and I want to understand it better.
I had several friends who, just like you, initially reacted with anger and fear, but with a little time and thought, they adopted a different mindset, more like the one that you and I and our whole gang more or less have shared since.
And then there were people like my father, whose initial reaction was more tempered, but who seemed to grow in fear, anger and hatred as the war raged on (He's now practically a birther, which is disheartening)
And where I get really confused is my own reaction. Knowing myself as I do, I would have expected to react exactly as you did; Indeed, I think I am a much more vengeful and less peace-oriented person than you are.
But I didn't react with anger or a desire for revenge; I just felt instantly stupid. Stupid because I had no context for what happened. I was so out of the geopolitical loop that I had no way to assess what was going on. I barely knew who Bin Laden was. I couldn't figure out why this was happening and I went into a pattern of trying to cram for the Doomed to Repeat it exam, whilst quickly slipping into a mode of "let's find out what they want and see if we can give it to them so that they don't do this again."
So it seems like maybe you, as a peacenik, responded uncharacteristically and I did the same, but as a more warriorish guy, I did the opposite. Do you think that maybe crisis brings out the opposite sketches in us?
I find both Sisk's article and TWWG's response interesting because I see that sexual orientation has little to do with how we react to 9/11. But being gay does, I think, have an influence on how I view killing men--and people in general. On 9/11, I was very sad over the destruction of the two buildings of the WTC. I loved those buildings. I was in NYC just before the second tower was completed. And it wasn't just the buildings as we see on the outside, but all of the beautiful offices inside that were destroyed. I don't know how much money was lost--but certainly untold billions. As for the people who died on that day--I'm giving my viewpoint here--in an overpopulated world, life isn't all that precious.
Not only am I gay, but I've been a life-long atheist and my first thoughts were: "Why do they hate Americans so much?" After I came to realise that this was because of religious fanaticism, then I began to blame America for the attacks--just as I blame America for the severe oppression of gays in Africa. In the name of "Freedom of Religion," so many nations allow the export of their vile Christian religion and all the pain and suffering religions causes.
What America and European nations should have been doing all along is exporting, not bibles and preachers, but rational thinking along with our science. Exporting atheism as a national defence policy. Instead, under the horrible Bush Adm, they got even more religion in the Pentegon.
Outside of a small (but growing segment) America still doesn't get it. In December 2009, the U.S. House passed a $636 Billion defence bill, 395-34, with little debate. Instead of building more weapons of mass destruction, why not fund a corps of atheists and send them abroad? There is a gentle way of teaching the concepts of atheism without belittling people--a way that will get people to seriously re-think why they believe what they do.
I would like to see the U.S. fund a program, similar to the Peace Corps, that is dedicated to presenting a view of societies without religion. If we can allow the most unethical class of people in the world (ministers of religion) to go about spreading lies, the least America and Europe can do, for everyone's safety and security, is to give an alternative viewpoint to the same people affected by the world's preachers--both fundamentalist and moderate. --Hotem Dajenid
While I agree with you that promoting atheism can help to minimize religious zealotry and war in general, I really have no idea what you're talking about in terms of how being gay relates to one's reaction to events like 9/11. You mentioned it a couple of times, but never explained what you meant by that.
My view is that heterosexual males are more likely to look to violent solutions to solving problems. I don't think a scientific study was made to confirm this idea, but I think such a study would prove my pooint. --Hotem
This -- I promise -- is quoted verbatim from the most recent e-mail circulated by the Parents Television Council:
On Sunday night (January 3rd), the Fox broadcast network program American Dad featured a man masturbating a horse.
We're sorry to be so explicit, but you need to know exactly what's airing on broadcast TV -- the public airwaves that YOU own -- and on an animated program that is one of the most popular programs with children as young as 2-11.
If you believe that masturbating a horse violates the federal broadcast decency law -- the law that prohibits broadcasters from airing indecent material when children are likely to be in the audience -- then we urgently need you to take action now.
Sadly this isn't the first time that television writer Seth MacFarlane has featured bestiality on the public airwaves. But with your help, hopefully we can make this the LAST time.
And here is my response:
Dear PTC,
I am writing to applaud your denunciation of the vile animated program American Dad, and its recent decision to profane the airwaves with a man masturbating a horse.
If only I had known about this before it was too late. After viewing the program last Sunday night, my eight-year-old son Gary raced out of the house with great urgency. When my wife Bonnie and I asked where he was going, he slammed the door in our faces -- a level of disregard he has never previously shown us. We found him outside, in the barn, masturbating a horse.
Children, as you are well aware, often imitate the behavior they see on television. Rather than blame Gary -- or ourselves -- for this transgression, we calmly told him that we loved him very much and were not angry, but that the media had failed him, and that it was inappropriate for a young man to masturbate a horse. But Gary, exhibiting some of the qualities recognizable in hardcore drug addicts, just kept masturbating that horse, giggling maniacally.
At this point, Bonnie had seen enough. "Young man," she shouted, "you stop masturbating that horse and go to your room!" Gary then told us that he knew what he was doing was okay, because he had seen it on American Dad. He said, "I know all my friends watch American Dad, and I'm sure they're all masturbating horses now, and I want to fit in and be accepted, so I'm going to masturbate this horse all night long."
Well, I picked that boy up by his collar, tore him away from the tumescent equine, and marched him straight up to his room. I was quaking with anger at Fox, at Seth MacFarlane, at Hollywood, at the whole crooked system which teaches our children that it's funny to masturbate a horse. I was so upset I could hardly speak, which left the lecture to Bonnie. She was right behind us on the way upstairs: "Masturbate a horse, will you? Well, when you grow up and move away you can masturbate as many horses as you want to, but under my roof you play by my rules, and one of my rules is don't masturbate horses," etc.
We left Gary to ponder these lessons and went back downstairs to watch King of Kings, Nicholas Ray's 1961 classic about the life of Jesus. We were just beginning to enjoy ourselves and forget the evening's trauma, when the doorbell rang. It was late -- who could this be? We opened the door, and there, holding a bouquet of flowers and a bottle of wine, was the horse.
Sincerely, Noah Diamond
Click here for more fun with the Parents Television Council.
This is a serious problem and not something to joke about. I started masturbating horses when I was in grade school and it just led to other things. I've masturbated just about everything you can think of - pigs, giraffes, even llamas. Horses are a gateway animal. This is a real problem and you shouldn't make fun of people who suffer from this addiction.
Ten years ago, we were so focused on the New Century and the New Millennium, we didn't talk much about the New Decade. For a decade, as many great thinkers have said, is not as long as a century. But it is the way we measure and discuss our adult lives ("You see, dear, it was the Seventies"), and it's hard to believe that that was a decade, just now,just as the Eighties or the Nineties were decades. We just did another one of those.
This decade has had an identity crisis, maybe because it has had no name. Some people have tried to call it the Zeroes, the Oh-Ohs, the Uh-Ohs, the Aughts, the Oughts, the '00ughts -- none of it works. It's a decade we can't talk about, because we don't know what it's called.
Groping for instant perspective, what most strikes me about the passing decade is how it was bookended by paradigm-shattering political events. In 2000, the calamitous cooperation of electoral fraud and judicial fiat installed George W. Bush in the White House. In 2008, the American people elected Barack Obama their President. As we navigate the political climate of 2010, we should remember the tragedy of 2000 along with the triumph of 2008. The far right's refusal to accept Obama's legitimacy, laughable though it may be, is more complex than it seems; it's not just racism. It has something to do with our own refusal to accept Bush. It's part of the routine now: If you don't like the guy, you find a way to believe that he has no rightful claim to the office. It's the easiest position you can possibly take, because it spares you the burden of knowing about any other issue. It's nothing-else-matters. If the president isn't really the president, then every single thing he does has to be challenged, on principle.
But why couldn't we accept Bush's legitimacy? Because he lost the popular vote, and because the Supreme Court stepped in and appointed him rather than let anyone find out who won the electoral vote. And the extreme right cannot accept Obama's legitimacy -- because of a series of long debunked myths regarding his birthplace. Which makes it appear that their true argument is with the color of his skin and the sound of his name. Anyway -- we've covered this. Simply, the illegitimacy argument is illegitimate. But it has as much to do with George W. Bush as with Barack Obama.
And today, the personification of Conservative America is an unemployed former governor, who quit in the middle of her first term in order to hire someone to write a book for her, and who now exists primarily on Facebook -- as opposed to the (legitimate or not) President of the United States. Sarah Palin makes George W. Bush look like George Bernard Shaw.
At this time ten years ago, the Republicans controlled the Congress -- so ruthlessly as to have impeached Bill Clinton for adultery! -- and seemed to be pitting John McCain against Al Gore. "It's a center-right country!" bellowed the conservative pundits. "It's a center-right country!" How often did we hear that throughout the Bush years? It might have been true ten years ago.
Still, at the moment, hope feels precarious. The Senate's health care bill has been so thoroughly mutilated that we're not even sure if we want it to pass. Worst of all, the mutilation has been performed more by conservative Democrats, goddamnit, than by -- I'm sorry; what was the name of that other party again? The little one? It seems that if true reform is in the cards, it will be because the liberal majority in the Senate summons the chutzpah to pass a good bill by reconciliation, and not because of any meaningful, active leadership on the part of the president.
His thoughtful words at West Point and Oslo did not convince me that a troop escalation in Afghanistan was a good idea. He has not done enough for the gay civil rights movement. He has not done enough to keep guns off the streets, crooks off the Fed, or heat off the polar ice caps. He has not done enough to keep the arts in the schools, the kids in the classroom, or the manufacturing base in the urban centers.
Second Avenue is still a mess, and have you been on the B.Q.E. lately? Why has President Wonderful not yet enacted comprehensive television reform? We are getting very close to the end of his first year in office, and there is not one electric car on my block. Parliamentary procedure is still ridiculous. Does the man not realize he could save the whole economy just by legalizing marijuana and prostitution? And if he's not going to legalize prostitution, can he at least have Joe Lieberman arrested for it?
Of course we were going to be disappointed. I doubt history has ever asked as much of one person as it's now asking of Barack Obama. But looking ahead to the next decade, and looking behind at the last one, I'm overwhelmed by this inspiring thought: Could be worse. So friends, let's hang on to our hope and greet the new decade with a dynamic burst of positive thinking. America -- Could Be Worse! Yes We Could.
So what do we call this next one? The Ones? The Teens? I can't wait till the Twenties, when we'll be wearing fedoras and doing the Charleston.
I've been reading a lot about FDR, and how he was not always the progressive hero that we've come to admire. Neither was Johnson. They both sacrificed things to get bills passed, and they had to do it with far greater majorities (I think FDR had 70 Democrats!) Obama has done some good things. I think he'll do more once HCR passes and he has that off his plate. I know liberals are frustrated, but we have to remember where we would be if McCain/Palin had won. I know some people like to say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, but those people are crazy! :)
NOTE: If you are a conservative, a Christian, and/or a Republican, DO NOT READ THIS. I'm trusting you to respect this notice and move along. What I'm about to say is just among liberals, intended for the left only. It's secret. So please, conservatives, just go to another website. Here's one you might enjoy.
Okay. Now that it's just us secular humanists:
As you know, this month is the culmination of our major combat operations in the War on Christmas, and I'm pleased to report that our side is winning. The enemy thinks it's winning, which means we've got them right where we want them -- too strung out on eggnog and yuletide cheer to notice that this year, there shall be no Christmas!
I want to thank everyone who's used the phrase "Happy Holidays" -- which as everyone knows is one of the most insulting things you could possibly say to someone. It is said that every time someone says "Happy Holidays," one of Santa's elves experiences a cerebral hemorrhage. Keep it up!
I also want to congratulate those who have waged war on Christmas by including such symbols as Hanukkah menorahs and Kwanzaa kinaras in their storefront windows and other public displays. Inclusiveness is to Christmas as Kryptonite is to Superman, and our generals are confident that it will only take a few more menorahs and kinaras, prominently showcased, to obliterate the last traces of Christmas.
For those of you not present at our last meeting, I would like to remind you of some important wartime rules and regulations. Do not, under any circumstances, deck the halls with boughs of holly. That's exactly what they want us to do. Please avoid donning your gay apparel. Gay apparel is for conservative Christians only.
I'm pleased to report that in our sweep of the battlefield, we have taken into our custody a large number of enemy combatants. We believe that after being subjected to our enhanced interrogation techniques, these prisoners of war will provide us with information crucial to our cause. Thus far, we have apprehended twelve drummers drumming, eleven pipers piping, ten lords a-leaping, nine ladies dancing, and eight maids a-milking. Yes, there are many more insurgents still at large, but we feel the threat has been contained, as most of them are birds.
Now is not the time to back down, as we are on the verge of victory. Above all, do not allow the enemy to appeal to your sympathies. Many will try to justify their position by describing their affinity for the teachings of Jesus Christ, but this is clearly a diversionary tactic. What the hell does Jesus have to do with Christmas?
We fight this battle not because it is easy, but because it is fun. So stay strong! Keep fighting! And above all, Happy Holidays.
“Ma’am, with all due respect, you can go jump off a bridge.”
That’s what ten-year-old Will Phillips of Arkansas said to the teacher who told him he had to say the Pledge of Allegiance. This child, an example to us all, was willing to endure not only the school’s punishment for his principles; he was willing to endure the undoubtedly cruel reaction of his peers -- who, he told CNN, are now calling him a “gaywad.” Yep, that’s elementary school: A smart and sensitive child capable of “Ma’am, with all due respect, you can go jump off a bridge” is being tormented by peers who can’t come up with anything better than “gaywad.” Phillips’ refusal to say the Pledge stems from his support of same sex marriage rights. “I’m good friends with a lot of people who are gay,” he said, “and I think they should have the rights all people should, and I’m not going to swear that they do.” He says he would consider saying the Pledge if “there truly was liberty and justice for all.”
Will Phillips is lucky to have parents who understand and support him. Watching his father, Jay Phillips, accompany his son on CNN, beaming with pride and admiration, I thought, this kid’s going to be great.
I can relate to Will Phillips, because I, too, refused to say the Pledge for most of my gradeschool years. (And I, too, had the support of enlightened and understanding parents.) My own objections to the Pledge of Allegiance weren’t focused on a specific issue. I just didn’t like it. First of all, I thought, I’m not going to pledge my allegiance to a symbol. I thought it was funny. Why are we being so solemn about a piece of cloth? I also thought the robotic, hand-on-heart, unison recitation was creepy.
It’s not that I had disdain for America, or for the language of its ideals – just the opposite. At twelve, I memorized most of the Declaration of Independence. But I didn’t stand there and recite it in unison with all the other kids.
I eventually developed more concrete objections to the Pledge of Allegiance. Partly, my reasons were similar to Phillips’: Just saying “liberty and justice for all” doesn’t mean anything, when examples of injustice abound. A few years down the line, I became uncomfortable with the “under God” phrase. Later, I learned that the phrase “under God” wasn't even part of the original Pledge of Allegiance, written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. It was added to the Pledge in 1956, by a congressional resolution, signed by President Eisenhower. Why? Because of the flag-waving, Bible-thumping paranoia of the McCarthy period.
Will Phillips’ reasons for not saying the Pledge, as far as any report has indicated, are unrelated to its inherent absurdity, or the phrase “under God,” or anything other than his conviction that “liberty and justice for all” is, at this point, a lie. But motive is beside the point. Every schoolchild in America can recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but how many do you think emerge from school with a real understanding of American government and history? How many do you think even know what “allegiance” and “indivisible” mean?
Are you a student? Refuse to say the Pledge, starting today, as a show of solidarity with Will Phillips. Are you a teacher? Remind your students that the Pledge of Allegiance is optional. Are you a parent? Encourage your children not to mindlessly regurgitate pledges, prayers, and oaths at the insistence of authority figures. Have a problem with any of this? With all due respect, you can go jump off a bridge.
