Filling in the skipped steps
by Jack GrantI recently wrote a post asking a question regarding the funeral of Coretta Scott King. In that post, I skipped several steps in my thinking that led from the uproar over the speeches made at the funeral and the question that I posed, and in the process of skipping those steps I conveyed a message at best incomplete and more typically misinterpreted. So, here I will fill in the missing steps, and I hope to turn this into a broader post on a related topic, that of context, because the context of my life and recent events in my life drove my thinking which was unexplained in my post. Unfortunately, more than one blogger misunderstood the context of my question because I did not explain it.
Regular readers of Random Fate know at least some of the context in my life, that of the recent death of my father, and I have first-hand experience of both funeral planning and how things go off the preferred track.
You see, at my Dad’s funeral there was a Baptist preacher delivering the sermon, and a sermon it was, with the proselytizing characteristic of evangelicals that infuriates me, especially in the context of my father’s funeral, because he was not a proselytizing man.
The preacher deviated from my preference, but his sermon was comforting both to my Mom and my Dad’s mother. You see, funerals are not for the dead, they are for the living, and not all of the living get an equal vote.
I have not seen any articles reporting on the family of Mrs. King complaining about the speeches given at her funeral. Please correct me if I have missed news of this, but if there are no objections from the family, then who are we, bloggers, commentators, politicians, whoever, to claim that the events of the funeral were “inappropriate” if the family of Mrs. King through their silence give their approval?
This was one step I skipped, noting that those expressing their disapproval had no vote in the arranging of the funeral, nor any right to judge what the family wished.
Another step I did not explain was my reasoning chain that led to me asking when else could opposing views be presented directly to President George W. Bush, because the reason behind my question was to prompt thoughts on if we truly want a President who is so disconnected from opposition that he has to be confronted in seemingly inappropriate contexts, such as a funeral honoring a public figure that the President feels compelled to attend.
One of the most troubling aspects of the Presidency of George W. Bush to me has been the exclusion of anyone who even appears to present an opposing viewpoint from publicly funded events at which President Bush appears. If these were funded through the Republican Party, or through private sources, they would not be contrary to the spirit underlying our Constitution, but when events that we are all paying for are exclusive to only those who support the views of the President, that is positively un-American, regardless of what the mindless cheerleaders would want you to believe.
What is democracy about? What is America about?
Dissent…
Our nation was founded on dissent. We should never forget that the American Revolution was a rebellion against the legal, legitimate government of the colonies, and the Declaration of Independence was nothing more than an attempt to justify an illegal rebellion against a legitimate government.
Yet we now have a President who apparently cannot confront dissent directly.
Think about this in the context of our tradition, not the context of the current partisan furor.
Think, don’t just react.
In the framework of our tradition, along with the context of the apparent wishes of the family of Coretta Scott King, was my question, “When, exactly, since the so-called ‘debates’ during the election (which were so controlled as to be laughable if they weren’t the sole forum for direct confrontation between opposing viewpoints), has President Bush had any opposition presented to him publicly in a forum that was NOT controlled by the White House?” so out of line, or even partisan?
Context, while not everything, is important.
A recent link I posted was to a parody trailer for the movie Sleepless in Seattle, presenting it as a horror movie instead of the obvious chick-flick it was shows the effects that context has on our perceptions. Watch the movie file in the link and think about how the music and the narration “frame” the images in a way completely contrary to the actual film, although the individual scenes excerpted were not altered.
Even over a quarter of a century ago, when I was in my early teens, I would look at the copyright date of anything I read, short story, novel, nonfiction, whatever. It was important to me to understand the time and the culture which informed the writing of whatever I was reading, and I discovered it was especially true in the case of science fiction. This is a topic that merits its own post, if not a book.
Another example of context can be found in educational films made in the wake of World War II. For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica made a film on the dangers of despotism in 1946, only one year after the surrender of the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese. Thinking in the terms of that era, given what the British and Americans had so recently experienced, watch the film (NOTE - it is about 10 minutes in length, watch it through this link, or download it through clicking on the thumbnail image below):
Even though the context of the short film was in the immediate aftermath of World War II, with all that implies with respect to democracy and despotism, there is a resonance that rings through the years of the Cold War, when we claimed to be fighting against the evils of Communism as expressed by the Soviet Union and a decade or so later the so-called People’s Republic of China.
What exactly did we say we were fighting against?
Think about it, not in partisan terms, but in fundamental philosophical foundations.
The culture which formed the context in which I was raised said that we were fighting against the despotism of Communism that ignored the freedoms we had chosen to enshrine in our Bill of Rights.
The arts of the time, notably the television and movies, can give a feel for the times to those who did not experience them, and for those who did live then provide a useful reminder.
The Day After (1983) - a television miniseries that showed the likely effects of all-out nuclear war and frightened a nation when President Ronald Reagan labeled the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” that must be destroyed.
2010 (1984) - both the book and movie are filled with the Cold War anxiety of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction that had the so rarely appropriate three letter acronym MAD
The Searchers (1956) - a movie made substantially earlier than either of the two referenced above, but one that is very instructive of both the attitudes and ambiguities of the time, especially when the treatment of the Native Americans is considered, along with the uncharacteristic antihero role played by John Wayne, a courageous man who is acting out of questionable motives, a contrast to his typical role of the quintessential American hero
Each of these need to be viewed in full and considered with respect to the context of the time in which they were made, not in the context of the time in which we live now.
Think about it. If we view the film on despotism linked to above in the context of our current time, it could be interpreted in myriad ways, most of them negative in the view of those who are partisan fans of George W. Bush.
Yet, the film itself was made before George Bush senior even entered politics, much less his son would have been thought of as possibly being President.
Consider the contrasts, the context of the time in which the film was made, and the tenor of politics today.
Think about how our environment and the “framing” of issues influences our thinking, even when we try to go outside our partisan boxes that constrain us and require certain reactions to each issue.
In the end, that is all I ask when I write for this weblog, try to go beyond the spin, beyond the framing, beyond even our current cultural context and partisan boxes. Try to reach back to first principles, the freedoms that the founders fought so hard to achieve and which have somehow survived to our present day.
Technorati Tags: commentary, culture, current events, freedom of speech, politics, popular culture, President Bush, President George W. Bush
Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)
I think you’re making some serious mistakes here, making some gross oversimplifications.
1) Was it only simply a funeral? Quite obviously it wasn’t. If Bush didn’t go he’d get bashed for that—’See, republicans really are racists. Couldn’t even go to King’s funeral.’— and as President he has a responsibility to go to something like this, prediliction to go or not.
THen there’s the fairness question. Is it fair to hit someone when they cannot hit back? Isn’t that your complaint about the controlled nature of the PRes’s appearances, that the opposition really doesn’t get a chance to respond?
So, say he does return fire in this context. Well, he’s wrong again ain’t he for using this funeral, that’s supposed to be about the wife of a civil rights leader for his own stump speaches.
2) Saying that just because there’s, in your opinion, no direct way to present dissent to the President(or verbal abuse or the heckler’s veto) doesn’t make turning what should’ve been a celebration of a woman’s life, into a stump speach okay(that sounds kind of like the childish, ‘Well, they’re doing it so I’m going to too.’).
Fine, we find some other way. I think you’re wrong about the issue of dissent, what does direct delivery of dissent do that all the other dissent displays don’t?, but there’s room to change without turning funerals for national heros into free for alls so we can avoid something like at the funeral of Gerald Ford we have someone attacking a Pres. Hillary Clinton for helping her husband gut and humiliate the military(and would it be okay because the family of Ford didn’t object?). Some precedents are dangerous to set.
The US may be about dissent, but it’s also about fair play and knowing when internecene fighting isn’t helpful(like during the 1944 elections and giving McClellan an emberassing defeat even if half the North wanted to agree with him and end the Civil War.).
In a post the other day you implied you wanted honesty and decorum to return to politics—this isn’t the way to get that.
Maybe something more like the Parliament weekly meetings with the Brit PM is more of what you want?
I don’t understand your near fetish with dissent. If you could get right in his grill would it change his answers?
3) There is hordes of dissent every day in the US. I don’t know if you’re seeing the same press conferences I am on C-Span day after day. But they are anything but paddycake.
There are weekly rallies all over the country against the Iraq War and W. What more do you want?
4) I think we need(or at least I) a better def’n of what you want in an answer. Apparently whatever answers you’ve gotten don’t slake your thirst. What is it you want, specifically, that would satisfy you?
By ry on 02.15.06 18:50
Democracy is not dissent. It is defined as below.
de•moc•ra•cy P Pronunciation Key (d -m k r -s )
n. pl. de•moc•ra•cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
democracy
n 1: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives 2: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them [syn: republic, commonwealth] [ant: autocracy] 3: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group [syn: majority rule]
“Our nation was founded on dissent. We should never forget that the American Revolution was a rebellion against the legal, legitimate government of the colonies, and the Declaration of Independence was nothing more than an attempt to justify an illegal rebellion against a legitimate government.???
Rebellion is only treason in the third party, “their rebellion???. Our nation was founded on the principal that we should self govern ourselves. Majority rule. That we not have to bend our knee to any king or royalty, not pay their taxes, nor honor their laws. We deserved our own country, we were not England’s subjects. Tyranny tends to ferment rebellion.
We achieved that.
The King Family had and has the right to any funeral they wanted for their mother. President Bush should have expected what he got.
Democracy of course because of two things 1. Free Will and 2. Free Speech, of its nature spawns dissent. But majority rules.
American civilization allows for dissent. It is the steam release valve of our society. But elections change the direction of the country, not fantasies screamed at those in power.
By jim b on 02.15.06 18:53
Maybe I’m missing something, Jack. You can’t possibly be saying that those who oppose the President’s policies can’t get a venue to express that dissatisfaction - and that because public events are so controlled (by both sides) that people are forced, by circumstance, to resort to attacking him in venues like this?
I get your point about the King family maybe fully approving of all this, etc, though I submit that virtual state funerals don’t quite enjoy the same solicitude as private funerals do - but that’s a different issue.
Of course, I ignored the whole thing anyway, figuring it was going to be another form of political theater as the funeral of Rosa Parks was.
I dunno, Jack, I just think using that platform that way, especially when you know the target really can’t respond, is tacky, cheap, and in a sense, cowardly. I don’t think Carter or Lowery have any difficulty getting across their opposition that they needed to use that forum.
That they are frustrated that their opposition doesn’t have sufficient traction to turn into (thus far, we’ll see in November) political traction doesn’t excuse the cheap shot nature of the attacks.
I didn’t call ‘em an ambush. If the President didn’t walk in there with Eyes Wide Open he really is the idiot the left believes him to be.
Or am I missing something?
By John of Argghhh! on 02.15.06 19:56
Okay, I know this is probably a BAD time and context to bring this up, but(that’s never stopped me from being stupid in the past), I have this notion that when people are complaining about ‘not being heard’ what they really are saying is that they’re miffed about not being obeyed.
Jack, this isn’t pointed at you specifically, so don’t take it personal-like okay?
It’s just a general idea that I think might speak to dissent and opposition being frustrated in the US right now.
By ry on 02.15.06 21:20
Once the television cameras appeared, it ceased to be a funeral and became a media event, with all the posturing and pontification that implies. And that’s a shame…
By BillT on 02.15.06 21:23
I think your right on. I think that if Coretta was able it see that you could get four Presidents in the same room she would say, “Don’t let that opportunity slip by. Tell them what’s what.”
I’m not sure if dissent conferred the right meaning you were looking for (based on the comments). Perhaps debate or controversy.
It’s a sorry state when Presidents do not and perhaps cannot defend their ideas in a open forum.
A bit of logic: If you cannot defend your idea in an open forum then perhaps your idea is flawed. Or at very least you need to do more research.
By Ryan S on 02.16.06 22:59
What is so difficult to understand here guys. Jack is right on target. I know that if ever I have a funeral, I would want people who speak of me to carry on with my work, and speak with my voice about the issues and concerns I carried with me through my life. What happened at CSK’s funeral is exactly that. Do you actually believe that at the last moment, Carter and everyone else changed their speeches just to attack Bush? It would have been said regardless.
By Sine.Qua.Non on 02.18.06 06:54
To be honest, one of the problems I tend to have with your posts is that you always say “think” after you’ve made a point. Perhaps we have thought and have decided that we don’t agree with you.
Just because you make what you think is a good point doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct. Hell it may be just as correct as its opposite as truth is in the brain of the thinker.
You write well but I tend to not agree with you on many issues and it’s not because i don’t “think”.
By Scott on 02.18.06 21:12