But some of us seemed to want the selfsame thing. And some of our leaders seemed to be showing the way, deliberately blurring all the myriad distinctions that gave our world its depth and richness. Suddenly the world was being described in binary terms, and instinctively I knew that was wrong. An us-versus-them reaction may be normal in humans who are attacked, but is it accurate? Is it productive? Is it the reaction that those whom we look for guidance should be bringing out in us? Is this the best we can do?
-- Sarah Chayes, The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After The Taliban
Just starting this book, but the sentiment suggests a fellow traveler. Chayes saw 9/11 as a possibility, a shot across the bow that would push ("shock") us into the 21st century -- so to speak -- and help us deal with serious changes and dangers/demands of our era. Connecting this to my last discussion, she spoke about how (she was in Paris at the time, working for NPR) the French reached out after the attacks, and showed the possibility of unity across cultures. It suggested we could be respected for our moves toward "human dignity," and we have done much over the years doing just that. Many did look to us for inspiration, including (ironically) the leader of Vietnam that we decided was the Satan of Indochina in the 1960s.
[SC also argues that all people have basic needs and desires, the differences in application depending on various forces and historical events specific to the particular community. This is the philosophy of the UN as well as statements and treaties to which we are parties. It also suggests to me why it is immoral to somehow believe that it's ok if Iraqis suffer from terrorism and the like, since hey, better us than them. Of course, it helps it we think somehow Iraq was involved with 9/11, which shockingly high numbers still do believe.*]
But, and this was not too surprising, President Bush was not up to this task -- it was not really how he viewed the world. Some are (rightfully) upset on the path he and others like him took after 9/11, but the fact such people often was rather shocked at it is a bit troubling. It apparently took years, and for all too many they aren't there yet, for people to understand quite what we are dealing with. Thus, many expected fairly benign things from the guy in 2000 ... not too much overall, but he'd have reasonable sorts on his side (including Colin Powell), and he seemed to be fairly bipartisan in Texas, right? Such was the beginning of the problem -- Texas is a pretty conservative place, including among many Democrats, so bipartisanship there is only of limited value per se.
And, his record there -- it did not take much to determine this -- left a lot to be decided. It also hinted what was to come. But, it is truly hard to understand sometimes (it is painful to contemplate) the extent of the problem at hand. Thus, we try to formulate some vision of things that do not quite match reality. We see this in the push to honor "independent" Republican sorts ... various bloggers [Atrios etc.] rightfully sneer at David Broder who make such claims. This turns out to be a fool's errand, though one still thinks it poisons such Republicans too. IOW, such Republicans in various situations would accept various moderate policies if forced to do so.
But, party control matters more. This is a serious character flaw, as well as suggesting their policy views leave a lot to be desired, but I think there is some merit to the idea. Overall, however, it really doesn't matter at the current time. It might be useful if there is party control change (it might even matter if we had a credible President ... McCain, however, showed himself not to fit this description with his suck-up hypocrisy). Likewise, it does not just poison politicians. Thus, people probably know that the current situation is seriously problematic to our general welfare. But, they cannot bring themselves to vote for "x" for some reason, various reasons (some cultural, sectional, or whatnot) can be supplied.
People obviously matter. The link is not always adequately made. For instance, some people I care about have certain views about religious and personal matters that seem to me and others to be totally misguided, and in fact personally harmful in certain respects. Such views cannot and do not work in a vacuum. If people believe various irrational and in fact harmful things, it is likely they will apply the same mind-set to political views. The personal cannot totally be separated from the political. A common subject here is abortion and other sexually connected issues, but the principle holds true throughout. This does not mean -- and in practice it really cannot mean -- that such views cannot be held.
It just means that they matter. Such is the case for religious belief -- all sorts. Now, I personally think as a general matter that people's religious beliefs are clearly entwined with cultural ones and such. Not all, but it is hard to find someone with a religion that noticeably does not seem to go with their cultural milieu. So, only about twenty percent of evangelistic Christians tend to support Democrats -- a noticeable number, but still rather small. This is particularly bluntly seen is certain situations -- see, e.g., the creation of the Anglican Church. Anyway, personal religious belief clearly matters -- it is a clear variable in determining one's politics and so forth. No clear lines -- deep faith doesn't lead to irrationality in other contexts, but it does enough times to matter.
Anyway, Sarah Chayes is a level-headed sort that has a clear head on her shoulder, a sense of perspective (she admits error and so forth), and a good writer as well. Her progressive view of the world only adds to charm, at least for this reader, as she tells a story worthy of a novel (Peace Corps volunteer becomes NPR reporter and then runs a non-profit started by President Karzai's brother, her sex/nationality/philosophy coloring things all the while) that informs us as well.
---
* SC, for instance, felt it important to report the reactions of the Afghan people to the bombing campaign, reactions at time as much a result of fear (the precision bombing was new to them) as actual harms (some did occur ... such is war). She notes that this horrified some listeners, and even her own editors were not big fans of this subject matter. But, this was news, in part because how we are seen by such groups will have important aftershocks.
Likewise, why did the Taliban come into power in the first place? Hint: the current American backed leader supported them -- largely because the depths the country had sunk to after the Soviets left. Such complexity, however, was considered in bad taste by late 2001. Clearly, Hamid Karzai could never have been a Taliban sympathizer. But, lying to ourselves in this way is not the path to understanding the land. Not when the Taliban is still around and even protected by Pakistan.