“If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it.” – Minister Mentor of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew evoking the ghost of Deng Xiaoping whilst endorsing the Tiananmen Square massacre, Straits Times, Aug 17, 2004
At its core, Dreams From My Father is about the appreciation of humanity and its many ways. A leader with humanity is rare in a world brimming with brutal dictator, insolent kings and corrupt politicians. As Obama lives in Jakarta, Hawaii, LA, New York, Chicago and travels to Asia, Europe and Kenya, he tries to comprehend the social structure in these places. What does each person in that society really desire? Why are people’s beliefs and traditions so vastly different? What are their similarities? In Kenya, he discovers that the oppression of women is nonchalantly accepted. His grandfather himself would harass his grandmother. And his grandmother didn’t mind at all because she knew of no alternative. Polygamy is practiced widely in Kenya, too. Wifes don’t mind other wives. Is the Kenyan way of treating women brutal? Of course, it is. But Obama understands that it does not seem so inhumane to Kenyans. What seems brutal to a Columbia graduate might not be for a Kenyan goatherder. He can’t blame his grandmother for accepting servitude and for putting up with the beatings nor can he blame his grandfather for beating her. Similarly, he can’t blame his white grandmother for being scared of black men on the street.
As I kept reading, I became increasingly convinced by his ideas of pragmatism. Once you learn to appreciate humanity, you will also learn to be pragmatic because you know that humans are imperfect, because you know that although being an ideologue will not fail completely, nor will it suceed.
Politically, Obama is widely considered a pragmatist (which annoys a lot of people). In his inaugration speech, there is a great quote that illustrates this belief —
“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.”
But to say that Obama is purely a pragmatic person is untrue. His worldview values pragmatism the most but he’s also an ideologue. He beleives in certain values. But the difference lies in his method – pragmatism followed by idealism. He starts off with a finding a pragmatic solution to a problem and then, modifying and infusing it with his values. This is the exact opposite of what Bush did. Bush knew that tax cuts would increase budget deficits and yet, he decreased taxes 3 times! In fact, he fired his first Treasury Secretary for pointing out that taxcuts would worsen the economic situation. And then there are other ideologues who say “Abortion should be illegal no matter what” or “You shouldn’t use condoms ever”.
I believe in things, too. I think that human lives are superior to all other living organisms. And I wonder why shooting a deer is not illegal but shooting a dog is. To me, there is no difference. But if I was a judge, I’d not make it a crime to shoot deers because it’s a matter of culture. These social idiosyncrasies that have accumulated over the years must be tolerated. Mixing ideals, beliefs and pragmatism is tough. Here’s a simple conundrum using a single issue as an example —
I strongly believe gay marriage should be legalised. I think giving people equal opportunities and rights is something that can’t wait. But I also believe that society cannot yet accept gay marriage.
Why isn’t society ready to accept gay marriage? If a female acquaintance tells you that she is married, do you ask her “What does your spouse do?” or do you ask “What does your husband do?”. The other day, I was reading a NYTimes article about a male fashion designer, I read the line “when I entered his apartment, his husband was in the kitchen yelling…”.
Unconsciously, I went back and read that line again!
It’s not that I’m homophobic. I just happen to know very few people who are gay. These are our internal assumptions and it’s tough to change them. Most homophobic people are homophobic not because they want to be but because they grew up in a world where there were no homosexuals or where homosexuals were constantly demonized.
Historically, such issues have been solved by time. Legislation never works. You simply wait for the next generation to be more accepting. Is there any way by which we can make this faster?
The journey from being a ideologue to a pragmatic ideologue was/is not easy. If I can symphathise with everybody’s points of view, is anyone wrong? How will I be motivated if I’m angry at nobody? Will I end up siding with the restriction of freedom despite being an egalitarian? Do I risk becoming more socially conservative? Am I living out what Winston Churchill said “If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not conservative by 40, you have no brain”?
There are difficult questions with no answers (?). It’s incredibly scary to think that I might end up losing my own values in the process of appreciating everyone else’s values.
8 Comments
February 19, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Historically, such issues have been solved by time. Legislation never works.
I suggest reading up on the Civil Rights Movement, which is the quintessential example of lawmaking pushing the social envelope.
If we waited for everyone in a society to get over social issues without pushing them, we’d still be stoning people for marrying people of different races or castes.
March 27, 2009 at 5:24 am
Definitely read about the Civil Rights Movement before. I had the word “usually” in that sentence but it got lost while editing.
Yes, sometimes, legislation has to precede public acceptance but that of course is not the most desirable situation. Sometimes, we even have to go to war to defend our ideals. But my worry is that despite legislation, changes in attitude take much longer (whether legislation speeds up acceptance or slows it down is debatable).
I think the question that I brought up in the blogpost is very interesting. Since our technology evolves so fast, can human attitudes change just as fast? For example, a 90 year old living in the 11th century will have lived in a relatively stable society. But a 90 year old today would witnessed both public lynching of African Americans and the inauguration of a Black president. In countries such as India or China, this is even more pronounced because drastic changes in economic conditions (~10% growth for 30 years in China vs. 3% over 200 years in the U.S) have accompanied the technological changes. Just compare the lives of my grandmother in India with that of my great-great-grandmother who would have hardly seen any social changes in her entire lifetime. Hence, it seems that the rate of change of people’s mindsets has also accelerated in recent years. Or has it? Is this even possible given that a person’s value system takes hold during their teens and evolves only slowly as they grow older?
February 20, 2009 at 4:01 am
Replace “pragmatist” with “relativist” and you would be more accurate.
Read this (and the link in my name), and you’ll understand things a lot better:
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/q/
February 20, 2009 at 5:59 am
I interpret Obama’s approach differently. I think he is driven first and foremost by his ideology–that is to say, his ideology dictates his goals–but is a pragmatist when it comes to achieving those goals, politically and otherwise. I think he recognizes that injustice is not always a result of malice, but may be a result of ignorance or cultural norms; and that, rather than assuming the worst of others’ motives, we should assume the best, engaging them respectfully in dialogue to solve problems.
As for the rest of us, we cannot expect institutional actors (like government) to wave magic wands and change people’s opinions on social issues. Legislation *can* make a difference, but only when it is bolstered by popular forces. Nor can we afford to sit back passively and take comfort in the fact that things will be better eventually as society evolves–we need to create the momentum to ensure it happens, giving voice to the belief that the status quo is not acceptable.
March 27, 2009 at 7:24 am
I think his goals (and that of all Presidents, in fact) are determined by the real world circumstances (be it the financial crisis or healthcare reform). So, I don’t see much difference between Republicans and Democrats in their goals since they need to focus on issues that the voters care about.
What’s different is that Bush would never raise taxes at this time (something Obama plans to do by letting the Bush tax cuts expire) even if all economists recommend it as the best way to reduce the budget deficit. Bush’s position stems from his political ideology which states increased deregulation and lower taxes are better for the economy no mater what. On the other hand, Obama would allow tax cuts, something Democrats don’t really like.
February 20, 2009 at 6:29 am
I think 99.9% of people recognize that. What he, and most on the left, don’t seem to realize, is that injustice can indeed be the result of “malice”. A prime example is the West’s continuing ignorance of the malicious nature of Islam (even the “evil” GWB said that Islam is a “peaceful religion”). I can only hope that people start reading the Koran and the Hadiths:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Islam-Crusades/dp/0895260131/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230074636&sr=1-3
Facts SHOULD trump ideology every time.
There. You now have no more excuses.
February 20, 2009 at 6:51 am
The ever insightful and outspoken Pat Condell: Freedom go to hell
February 22, 2009 at 6:08 pm
It’s a nice attempt to reframe the question, but ultimately it falls flat. What if “a government that works” is one that gets out of the way? Or what if it’s a government that takes less of my money to give me things I don’t need? Those are my ideas of a good government.
The problem with Bush wasn’t his tax cuts but rather with his unwillingness to fight his own party on spending. Oh, speaking of increasing deficits, who just signed $800 billion in deficit spending? I wouldn’t have nearly as much a problem with shifting spending from the future to the present or with a moderate amount spent judiciously, but the so-called stimulus carved out whole new realms of spending that simply aren’t going to go away no matter how hard anyone tries — “temporary” increases simply aren’t. Then there’s the inefficiency: ever hear about the Milwaukee school district with projected declining enrollment and already-lingering unfilled buildings that got $85 million for even more buildings?
Also consider that the deficit as a percentage of GDP had been going down for several years from around 2004 (post-last-recession) until a couple years back, coincidentally just around the time the House and Senate flipped.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_djgssszshgM/SZPopHu6GEI/AAAAAAAAAzg/R5LBzirmy4s/s1600-h/budget+deficit.gif
The 2008 budget is the first one Democrats had a hand in, 2007 having been completed by the time they entered office, and it’s also the first to start dropping again. Change we can believe in, indeed.