Obama and Clinton sharing the presidency

Call me a conspiracy theorist, if you like, but I don't see Hillary Clinton coming second in any such arrangement. Obama, being the gentleman that he is, he would probably be pressured by the establishment to accept second in line, for the Democratic Party's sake.

Stuffs happen, you know. Obama, may find himself before his turn to assume the presidency, in some scandal, completely not of his making, but enough to make him politically in viable, at least in the court of public opinion, consequently voiding such arrangement and keeping Hillary on for the whole term.

I know America is not Kenya, but this is eerily similar to the ill-fated power sharing proposition, arranged under the infamous "Memorandum of Understanding" between Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga of Kenya (Obama's paternal ancestral homeland), which was reneged on by Mwai Kibaki and plunged Kenya into a brutal political unrest that lead to neighbors killing neighbors and the once "stable and prosperous" country, a rarity in Africa, almost went up in flames, so to speak.

Obama’s pastor may have helped him on his spiritual path, but has he now hindered his political path?

Every once in while I am “forced” to update my blog with a new post, this time, it is the incendiary preaching of Pastor Jeremiah Wright that brought me out of hibernation. The last time I came out of hibernation, it was the incendiary comments of radio talk show host, Don Imus that got me to venture out of my humble hood.

Even though the comments by these two influential men on either side of America’s racial divide have in common the provocation they setoff and the offense they have caused, there is a difference, however. While Pastor Jeremiah Wright’s comment may have been borne of frustration, indignation and, perhaps, misdirected animosity, Don Imus’ comments may have stemmed from self-conceit, insensitivity, disrespect, contempt, and derision.

With regard to Jeremiah Wright’s comments, I have to say that he chose the wrong sermon to mark his retirement from thirty-some years of ministry. His comments were imprudent, unproductive, unedifying, and undermines what Senator Obama has been trying to do, which is develop a new approach to racial reconciliation and a new way to move America forward.

It could be said that, by the controversial comments in some of Pastor Wright's sermons, he has distracted from Senator Obama's message and may have diminished his non-confrontational "ecumenical" approach, consequently hurting his cross-cultural appeal, by inadvertently reviving the hitherto absent, usual presumptiveness that have typically hobbled the appeal of previous African American aspirants. Those comments may have cost Senator Obama the chance to, not only become the first African American President of the United States, but the opportunity to get America unstuck from the morass of a certain history and perception, and move her forward to the great country she can become. This is still the best country in world, in fact, the only country that could produce an incredible story like Barack Obama's. Yet, America's full potential still only lay ahead. Imagine all the possibilities that lie in America's potentials - immutable potentials that are inextricably bound in the immutable providential ideals upon which America was founded.

Even though, Pastor Wright appear to qualify his statement and the object of his anger with the phrase “rich white people” like “Hillary”, which would appear to suggest that he did not imply or direct his anger at all white people. Nevertheless, he, as one who professes to minister the word of God, ought to learn from Proverbs 15: 1, 2 and 4: "A soft answer turns away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. The tongue of the wise uses knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools pours out foolishness. A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit." As Abraham Lincoln said, “When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and a true maxim, that a ‘drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.” We all recognize the wisdom in this in Lincoln's Gaithersburg address - a sermon that healed a wounded nation, rather than divide her on that premise.

As I have written elsewhere, racism, even the appearance of it, creates division, destroys the nation’s unity, and weakens her strength. Influential people, whether pastors, politicians, policemen, academics, media personalities, or social commentators, who make comments that lend themselves to racism or the appearance of it, in an environment polluted with distrust and suspicion, which perennially engender a charged sociopolitical atmosphere and frequently ignite explosive conflicts, are like occupants of a ship, who punch holes in its bow, while the rest of the occupants bail water out of the ship to keep it afloat. The vessel will inevitably sink with everyone in it unless the damage is repaired and the people responsible prevented from punching more holes. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “A small leak will sink a ship.” America is the ship in which we all journey; we must not allow racism or the appearance of it to sink her.

America cannot afford to postpone indefinitely, what needs to be done and must be done to move her forward. America is mature enough to deal with the issues of race in America once and for all, especially knowing that much of the issue is now to a large extent, particularly relevant in historical and symbolic contexts, since America, in my opinion, has a lot to show for the last forty years and difference to the previous four hundred years. “Leave nothing for tomorrow which can be done today,” Abraham Lincoln said.

We cannot afford to continue to live in fear of history. History is, perhaps, like medicine, sometimes unpalatable but able heal the body and make it well again or even better. History should not be read backwards, but must be used in the proper contexts to shape a better future.

Truth must be spoken in fairness, especially when spoken by a pastor, to edify the people and move them to righteous actions. Rather than rant and rave in bitterness and animosity, Pastor Wright needs to follow the admonitions of the Bible, and speak in a language that appeals to reason, not just emotion; a language that convicts the spirit and moves people to act in ways that would inspire repentance, forgiveness, healing and reconciliation - ways that bring out the best in people, not the worst. He needs to speak the truth with wisdom and fairness.

Joke or No Joke!

Don Imus has apologized for his derogatory comments last Wednesday, in which he referred to the mostly African America Rutgers University's women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos."

Perhaps, it was an inappropriate joke as he claimed in his apology. My opinion is that it was an insult or meant as one, more than it could ever be a joke. Although, from what I hear about the man, he could have as easily and callously made equally egregious comments about anyone else -- Jews, Irish, Italian, Polish, disabled people, Women, and even his wife and has done so for over 30 years; with one exception however. I will leave that exception and the reason for it to your imagination.

Imus said “I am a good person”, may be so, but Jesus Christ said Matthew 12: 34, “generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Luke 6: 45, has it as “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.” As far as Don Imus’ racially pejorative comments about the Rutgers University Basketball team, I will live it that.

However, I am more interested in a much bigger issue, knowing that this will not be the last time a Caucasian American will say something that would convey unsavory sentiments, thus provoking the bruised sentiments of African Americans. Here is the question that presents the issue: will African Americans ever accept satire or caricature taken in or out of the context of the “blackface minstrelsy” and the “darky” iconography, in light of the collective oppression associated therewith, when rendered by a Caucasian American? I for one think it is possible but it will take a long time and a lot of hard work. Here is why I think so.
Essentially what it boils down to, is trust. Will the so-called “black people” and the so-called “white people” ever come to a point where they can trust each other enough, as to take satires in the supposedly proper context or accept caricatures as humor?

America’s history has been one dominated by the issue of race and racism, even more than the war for independence and the civil war. This is largely because of the misdeeds of the past – from slavery to segregation. Racism in America or the perception of it is a very difficult and seemingly intractable problem, particularly because there is a fundamental disconnection between the two main constituencies in the matter, resulting from unresolved issues associated therewith. On the one hand are those, predominantly the so-called “Blacks”, who suffered racism, and on the other hand are those, predominantly the so-called “Whites” who did not and, perhaps, are in one way or another culpable in inflicting it on the former group, at least from the stand point of collective responsibility.

The problem with this situation is the perception by African Americans, that there is a tendency for those who have not experienced racism to minimize it, by claiming that those who suffered it, and perhaps still do, exaggerate its scope and impact. This in turn leads Caucasians to view African Americans as stuck on the subject (the so-called “victim mentality”) to the point of romanticism and being hypersensitive about it — a perception that infuriates the African Americans, who, therefore, view the Caucasians as grossly insensitive to their sufferings. The different feelings provoked by the issue can be summed up by a phrase we have all heard before: “Who feels it, knows it.” The flipside of this phrase, or what it underscores being, “who feels it not, knows it not.”

Perhaps, some white people minimize the issue of racism out of ignorance . . . simply because they do not know what it feels like. After all, they have never suffered it, while others do so out of malice and bigotry. Equally probable is the notion that some African Americans tend to exaggerate racism, as if they see it in every circumstance and in every Caucasian — a self-fulfilling prophecy, one might say. Others may indeed experience racism frequently in their lives, which causes them to see it the way they do — all around them, albeit, sometimes perceptively.

Nevertheless, if America is to overcome this “mother of all problems,” Americans must “get unstuck” from the state of disconnect that exist between the two main constituencies (African Americans and Caucasian Americans) and move forward. To do so, those who suffered, and perhaps still suffer racism must work to inspire those who did not, to understand the damages and ravages that racism causes and the difficult-to-heal wounds that past acts of racism have caused. They must do so, not to inspire guilt or to blackmail, but to help Caucasians truly understand the effects of racism and how they might be inadvertently perpetuating it and how they might help end it. On the other hand, those who have never suffered racism, and perhaps contributed in perpetrating it, even by the inaction from indifference, must be willing to listen, see, and experience racism and its effects through the eyes of those who have suffered it. They must do so genuinely, not condescendingly or superficially and must be willing to understand and to help heal the land. This would establish a new consciousness upon which partnership toward reconciliation could be built. The reconciliation must not be superficial; it must be sincere and must come from genuine personal conviction.

Both sides must recognize that the dynamics of the experience of racism is, perhaps like a gunshot wound — the slugs may be out and the wound may heal, but a scar often remains . . . sadly so, as a painful reminder of the experience and sometimes rousing painful emotions. In the effort to reconcile ourselves, we must employ the resources of the head and the heart, through thoughtful and just actions and through the Christian virtues of repentance and forgiveness, or the so-called “technology of self.” A presumption of guilt tends to make people defensive and defiant, while a patronizing attitude toward others tends to make them feel humiliated and offended. Therefore, both must be avoided, in order to establish a genuine environment for positive change. Abraham Lincoln said, “When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and a true maxim, that a ‘drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.”

History is important and must remain relevant, we must never forget our history and must not allow it to be revised or truncated, but we cannot and should not read history backwards. Our history should not hold us back; it should ever urge us forward, as a force, compelling us and moving us forward, knowing where we have been as a people and knowing that we must never allow ourselves to be taken there again.

We cannot be the people we ought to be or get to where we ought to be, if we only engage in the psychology of projection—we cannot perpetually attribute our failures or externalize the blame for our problems. Finally, we cannot afford to be indifferent about our problems. In this life of inevitable recompense, of inescapable accountability for collective responsibility, indifference to problems is not an option; an epitasis it is, in this metaphoric epic drama of life.

Is America fighting a war in Iraq againts her enemies or building a nation of unwilling people?

The thing that continues to befuddle and frustrate many people, me included, is the inability of the American leadership and press to speak clearly and candidly on this issue. This inability is largely the result of dubious politically exigent circumstances and the irony of political and diplomatic double talk, which is short-changing the country on what is really important. Now the public is effectively confused; not knowing what is meant when statements are made. The America public does not know exactly what we are doing in Iraq, whether we are fighting a war, as they have always known war or building a nation in the way they have never known.

There is a fundamental difference between waging war with another country and engaging in nation building of another country. In war, the objective is clear and precise – defeat the enemy militarily: decapitate and destroy the enemy’s army, extract the enemy’s surrender or truce and come home. In nation building, the objective is not so clear and certainly not as precise. The precondition necessary for successful nation building, as was the case with Germany and Japan is full realization and political will of the people to move forward and their desire for a better future.

Because the dynamics of war and nation building are incompatible, especially when conducted simultaneously, it is only logical and prudent to have different objectives and different expectations. The thing that makes the situation in Iraq very difficult, a difficulty that the America people have not been allowed to appreciate fully, is that a large portion of the Iraqis (Sunnis and Shiites alike), as General Peter Pace put it, are unable to love their children more than they hate their enemies. That is the reality of a society driven by revenge rather than reason and you can trace this directly to Islam or the language of Islam (Arabic), which has no word or real concept for compromise, in terms of reaching an arrangement via struggle and disagreement.

Before the war broke, a former Israeli Head of Mossad broke with tradition and went public with his views and projections on how Saddam would respond. He outlined three strategies that Saddam would be inclined to employ:
1. Use WMD, assuming he has them. He concluded that it was highly unlikely that Saddam would do so, because if he did, he would be proving America right and would lose the international sympathy he enjoyed, in opposition to the war.
2. Use human shield to draw even greater sympathy, by making America look bad on account of potentially high civilian casualties.
3. The Iraqi military would decapitate or dissolve quickly, knowing that it has no chance against the greatest fighting force on the planet, but only to emerge as an insurgency (a gorilla army) after the real war is over.

Clearly, the third strategy is what is in now in effect and has been since Saddam was defeated and his regime toppled. Of course, the implementation of this strategy is not so much by the Baathists (The Arab Socialist Baath Party), as it is by Al Qaeda, which quickly established itself in Iraq, taking advantage of the chaos and momentary power vacuum that followed the unexpectedly quick defeat of the Iraq’s army. Of course, this strategy would have been of no effect, if our soldiers had come home after the war was quickly won. When it became clear to Baathists and al Qaeda that America was not going to leave Iraq in the ruins of war after winning the war, but was going to stick around to rebuild Iraq, they saw an opportunity to really implement this strategy.Al Qaeda, coming to Iraq with a rich experience, having cut its teeth and horned its experience in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets, was off to a good start, and have remained ahead of our strategies ever since.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was quick and decisive, but the occupation proved more treacherous and turned out to be catastrophic. It began with Soviet soldiers getting killed one by one, day by day and in small numbers in sniper attacks, ambush, kidnapping, suicide attacks, and hit and run attacks. The attackers were very difficult to trace or spot before they attacked. Precisely because they blend in with the public, in mosques, market places and crowded places, which they effectively used as cover, making it very difficult for the Soviet soldiers to respond and when they did, innocent bystanders often got caught in crossfire, resulting in unintended casualties of civilians. The outcome reinforced the sentiments against the Soviets and the occupation. Whatever the reaction of the Soviet soldiers to those attacks, the purposes of the perpetrators ended up being served. Responding forcefully resulted in unintended casualties, making them appear heavy handed, oppressive and repressive. On the other hand, not responding forcefully made them appear weak, and encouraged their attackers.

In the end, public sentiments at home forced the Soviets to leave Afghanistan before their work was done, and without any form of government in place. This premature exit plunged the country into chaos and anarchy and created a perfect environment for a repressive regime and a haven for terrorists, which the Taliban and Al-Qaeda exploited to the extent everyone knows all too well. The coalition soldiers have seen these tactics used against them continuously since May 1, 2003, of course, with its new and most deadly arsenal, suicide bombers and IEDs thrown into the mix, al Qaeda hopes to achieve the same results in Iraq against us as it had in Afghanistan against the Soviets; that is the reality we are confronted with.

The six billion dollar question is what do we do, how do we respond, knowing that a quick exit from Iraq, before a “stable” government and one we can work with is established, holds extreme danger to the United States and the World as a whole, much more than anyone can fully appreciate at the moment. As has been rightly said, failure is not an option. It seems to me that what that means is we must remain engaged in Iraq, but we must come up with a better strategy and overall plan, one that is not just in reaction to events as they unfold, given the high unpredictability of all the dynamics at play.

All the smart people in our think tank institutions and study groups have all concluded that there is no one particular thing that can be done to achieve success in Iraq. It has been said by virtually everyone in charge of one aspect of the effort or another, from the soldiers to the generals, from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of State, that no one can predict the effect of the troop increment or predict victory on account of the troop increment alone. Therefore, increasing our troop level by 21,000 or any number for that matter, must be accompanied by making clear to the region and the world that if we eventually pull out of Iraq without achieving our goal of a stable Iraq, it would not be because America is defeated militarily, it would be because the people we are there to help are so incapable of reconciliation that they would rather sacrifice their children and their future, just because they hate their neighbors more than they love their children. We have to make it clear to the Iraqis and the region as whole, that, though we have a lot at stake in Iraq, the stake is even higher for them. Eventually, we will find other ways of dealing with whoever controls Iraq, be it Iran or Al Qaeda. There is always another way to any objective; we just have to look further and work harder.

Right now, we have essentially constrained ourselves to thinking just within the box. It is high time we began thinking outside the box. We have to be true to ourselves, we owe it our selves, in admitting that there is a possibility that we may not be able to make Iraqis (Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds) to at least accept the proposition of one another’s right to coexist. The adage, “You can take a horse to the stream but you cannot make the horse drink from it”, holds true here as well.

It is prudent that we start developing levels of sensitivity analysis to an outcome in Iraq that may not be what we want or hope for. Such analysis would lead us to start thinking outside the box, in time, to come up with plans to deal with a situation that may result, if Iraq collapses on account of irreconcilable differences between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. The one thing we cannot afford is to be unprepared or without a plan for another unexpected outcome in Iraq or one deriving from it. I am not against troop increment, but I would be very concerned if that is all there is to go with it and work with. The doctrine of clear, hold, and rebuild sounds very good theoretically, but if the Iraqis themselves (Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds) refuse to be reconciled, there is not much we can do to change the situation, even with additional troops of 21,000 or any number for that matter. We must make clear to them that the only option beside what we offer them (a chance to rebuild their country and to learn to live with their neighbors in peace) is the devil’s alternative.

America: More Than a Nation

In the inauguration speech marking his second term in office, President George W. Bush made clear his vision for the world:

America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth.

The history and “the values that gave our nation birth” of which he spoke, lie in the circumstances and ideals that produced the nation we have come to know as America. America is an idea more than it is a place. It is a providential idea intrinsically and inextricably bound to the immutable worth of every human being. That idea inspired the declaration of independence and the constitution. It is the idea:

…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall deem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

By virtue of its birth and ideals, America is an idea for all people. It is an idea that is synonymous with freedom for every human being. Freedom for all people is synonymous with democracy. To that extent, democracy is 'not a Western idea'; it is a good idea. It should not matter whose idea it was. What matters, is that it works. I am yet to see anyone who would personally refuse a procedure or medicine to cure a debilitating sickness just because it is a Western idea. The people who oppose democracy because it is “a Western idea,” are the same people who, without reservation or restraint, embrace every other good Western idea - telecommunication, transportation, medical technology, etc. An idea should be embraced or rejected on its own merit not on some sentimental hangovers.

When I hear people castigate the idea of freedom for every individual, regardless of place or position; I wonder what they would offer in its place. It has been said that hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. Such is the notion of standing for something and yet not wanting it to come about. One cannot claim to want freedom for all people, yet hinder the acts that will bring it about.

Speaking of America’s providential purpose: combating tyranny and bringing freedom to the world, Benjamin Franklin said, “Tyranny is so generally established in the rest of the world that the prospect of an asylum in America for those who love liberty gives general joy, and our cause is esteemed the cause of all mankind…We are fighting for the dignity and happiness of human nature.”

In establishing democracy in places where hitherto there has been tyranny, America - the country, is essentially extending “the prospect of asylum” -- America -- the idea, to those who love freedom, in their home lands.

In the end, America -- the country, may very well not be the best or greatest democracy, but perhaps America -- the idea, would have been an inspiration for such a place.

On the House Immigration Bill HR-4437

George Washington, in his farewell address in 1797, urged his fellow Americans to foreswear excessive party spirit and geographic distinctions. True, the tendency for excessive party allegiance has been part of American politics since the days of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, but it is increasingly acquiring a lethal dynamics and becoming a trend that threatens the legitimacy of America’s democracy and to undermine the security and stability of the country.

The double edged patronizing and victimizing politics of pandering, rife with inflammatory rhetoric for or against groups, takes advantage of people on the basis of their sentiments. This type of politics, inspired by the political numbers game that threatens to pervert America’s democracy, motivates people for the wrong reasons and drives them to develop strong in group loyalties, which undermines democracy and the unity of the nation. For some reason, the Republican Party has managed to appear recklessness in playing its hand on the all important issue of immigration and has suffered at the polls every time it did, much to the delight of Democrats who exploit the resulting situation. Americans left, right and center don’t like to see themselves as mean spirited; hence Republicans must not only be fair, but more importantly, must not be perceived by the public as mean spirited in pursuing their agenda, however right it may be.

The Republicans should have been deft in their approach. They should have adopted the incremental approach and should never have included the HR 4437 in the immigration reform bill in the first place, at least not at this time, because it appears mean spirited — the way democrats like to paint them and the same weapon the democrats have repeatedly and successfully used against them. There are better ways, that would not have been perceived as draconian, to achieve the intended results of the HR 4437. How is it that they could not learn from the 1994 California Proposition 187 and the experience of the 104th Congress?

One would expect that the Republicans would have learned from the last “fight” on the issue — the 1994 California Proposition 187 and the Republican controlled 104th Congress. With a manifesto titled “Contract with America”, the Republican controlled 104th Congress failed to play its hand deftly and was blamed for shutting down the government, by sending to then President Bill Clinton a budget proposal they knew was a potion he would not drink. As was expected, Clinton vetoed the billed just as he had said he would. Many observers believe that the Republicans’ judgment and objectivity were impaired by their “blinding hatred” for Bill Clinton. Some say that their hatred had turned into an obsession, and in their efforts to undermine a popular Democrat and president, they shot themselves in the foot — overreached and caused the country great harm.

Ironically, the Texas Democrats essentially shutdown the Texas government on May 14, 2003, when Texas Congressional Democrats, blaming the U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whom they are now intent on bringing down, for the drive to redraw the state’s congressional districts, fled to Oklahoma to stymie a redistricting bill by preventing debate and preliminary votes on the bill before the deadline, in the hope to prevent the Republicans from gaining additional seats, which would give the Republicans control of the House.

The standoff that ensued from the 1994 immigration bill raised the trend of excessive party loyalty and antagonism to an unprecedented level and created a deep division between the two major political parties, and indeed between citizens, much of which still remains even today. Some say it caused uproar among the public and created a backlash that haunted the leadership of the 104th Congress and arguably cost the Republican Party the midterm election in 1996. Consequently, some republicans blamed their leader, Newt Gingrich, the architect of the “Contract with America”, who subsequently, perhaps consequently resigned from his leadership post and later left the House altogether. Well, guess what, it is that season again and it is looking like it would be déjà vu all over again.

The Republican Party and the Democrats appear to be getting more belligerent and always at odds with each other, hence very little is actually getting done. Debates are now more acrimonious and issues are being neglected amidst unrestrained zeal to have the party’s way. It seems the politicians in their excessive allegiance to their political parties, only know how to or seek to disagree rather than agree. It would seem they are no longer interested in seeking common grounds on which to operate for the good of the nation and all her inhabitants.

They have become like two farmers contending for a piece of land; one plants his crops and the other uproots them, and then plants his own crops in their place. The previous farmer in turn uproots the second farmer’s crops and then replants his own crops which the first farmer in the ensuing tit for tat uproots and then replants his own crops. On and on, the cycle repeats itself, and in the end both farmers accomplish nothing, because they have no crops to harvest, needless to say that neither of them can provide for his family from his wasted efforts. The two parties are essentially like these cantankerous farmers and the citizens are like their families; not getting fed.

Over and over, issue after issue; the Republicans and the Democrats have taken positions that appear to first and foremost, sought to benefit their respective parties and not the nation. It has become a tradition among the politicians to maintain party loyalty or seek party interests that overrides national interests, hence it seems that all that matters is getting party members reelected, winning more seats, and taking or maintaining control of power.

The whole democratic exercise is increasingly tending toward the ridiculously foolish state of perpetual mutual disagreement, in that when either party takes a position or holds a certain view, invariably the other must take an opposing position or view, even when it knows clearly that the position it holds is wrong or less viable and the other party’s position is right or more viable. It sounds ridiculous, but it would seem that if the republicans or the Democrats say that a certain object is black, by inclination rather than objective reasoning, the other party would say that it is not black or that it is white. It appears that the only way that both parties know to remain relevant is by antagonizing each other at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent. I fear that the partisan politics between the Republicans and the Democrats is accelerating toward a point of no return — a relationship that is no longer driven or sustained by the prudence of objective reasoning, mutual peace, common mutual decency, and fairness, but has become driven by malice, mischief and the desire to outdo each other in the vicious cycle of strife and vendetta.

In such a circumstance, a relationship is redefined to exclude the true essence of fairness, peace, and goodwill toward each other. What this leads to is perpetual mutual animosity and hostility toward each other, a situation that perhaps describes the Jews and Arabs (both descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Ishmael), whose relationships are no longer based on the purity of brotherhood but have become redefined to the point that they have become mortal enemies. You think I am being extreme, just ask Bill Clinton and Tom DeLay, to mention a few. Politics in America is increasingly becoming a “blood sport” or game of character assassination.

Too much time, energy, money, and intellect are being wastefully spent on seeking for ways to undermine each other. Their mission has gone through a rapid metamorphosis, first turning into ambition, then obsession to control the three branches of government. It would seem to the public that the two major political parties have forgotten their responsibility to the nation. Hence, more and more people on the “left” and “right” are becoming fed up and are becoming apathetic to the democratic process. Some in frustration are even resorting to ballot initiatives as an alternative to what they are increasingly regarding as leadership failure on the part of elected officials and career politicians, a trend cannot be good for America.

The lake of strife at the Hill is overflowing its banks. It is rapidly turning into a river of bitter water and flowing down the hill to the prairies, threatening to overwhelm the land with the polluted mentality of “them against us,” an attitude that could only divide this great nation.

The Dilemma of Immigration

The events of the past few days, across America, as undocumented immigrants protest the new immigration bill that will criminalize all undocumented immigrants, highlight the dilemma of immigration in this country.

From the early seventeenth century to the twenty-first century, immigration to America has been borne out of two basic and fundamental necessities: liberty and life. In practice, one sometimes precedes the other, but in principle, both are often inseparable. To have freedom, one must have life, but to live life, one must have freedom. The pilgrims and founders came primarily for liberty; but they must have believed that greater liberty would ensure better life.

The primary cause of immigration to the United States, from very early in America’s history to the present, was a combination of factors such as social crisis, political discontent, religious discontent, and economic hardship. The degree to which these factors were the causes for immigration varied among immigrants. Nevertheless, they were fundamentally the same. These factors were the dominant reasons behind the unprecedented waves of immigrants from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany from the 1820s to 1860s.

During the fatal years of the potato famine and cholera epidemic (mid 1840s), the mass migration from Ireland increased more than twelve-fold. It was said that at least four out of every five people who left the shores of the “old country” to try their fortunes in the new were Irish. Overall, in the first half of the 1800s, the majority of the immigrants that came to America were from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany. By 1860 and up till 1890, immigrants from the Scandinavian countries had also joined.

The tidal wave of Swedish immigrants, which began in the mid 1840s and lasted until 1930, was also triggered by population pressure, economic hardship, agricultural hardship, social crisis, political discontent, and religious discontent. By the 1870s, the steady stream of immigrants from Europe had been joined by immigrants from Canada and China. Between 1890 and 1910, the majority of immigrants coming to the United States had shifted to those coming from Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Russia. From 1920 to 1930, more immigrants came from Greece, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Portugal, and Turkey. In the 1940s, Jews fleeing the Nazi persecution in Europe also joined the wave of immigrants to America. From 1965 to the present, immigrants from the rest of the world (who had been previously excluded) were allowed to join the great migration to the new world, courtesy of the Immigration Act of 1965, with provisions that granted asylum to refugees, favored immigrants with desired job skills, and allowed families to reunite.

There is a common invisible but real and ever-present force that draws and binds immigrants to America. As the wave of immigration shifted from region to region, one thing remained constant: the motive for immigrating—liberty and life. America is a nation conceived in and born out of these ideals. Indeed, the fundamental principles upon which America was founded rest on these ideals, the same way a strong house rests on a solid foundation and is given support by pillars of steel and concrete.

There is something about America with a universal appeal to people all over the world. That something gave birth to America’s independence and is enshrined in our constitution. It is the belief in the providential imperative “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

It is in the light of this legacy that oppressed and dispossessed people around the world have come to see America as a haven, even as a paradise on earth. This notion is practically immortalized in the famous proclamation on the Statue of Liberty in the words: “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” The world took America at her word and has been giving America her tired, poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free; however, not without the world’s best and brightest coming along too.

America has struggled to honor this perhaps exuberant commitment ever since. This is evident in her ambivalent attitude towards immigrants. It appears that America tries very hard to convince herself that she is not who or what she is, but never succeeds. However much America tries to suppress or deny her true nature as a guardian of liberty and an inspiration to the oppressed; frequently her true self gets the best of her. This is evident in the history of immigration legislation in America from 1790 to the present, which has been one of “to be or not to be.”

During this period, immigration legislation has been characterized by ambivalence—often seeming to discourage immigration, yet allowing it. It seems that measures to discourage immigration have always been reactionary and often preceded by public discontent supposedly borne out of fear of losing jobs and prosperity to new immigrants, and perhaps also for fear of losing the “American character” as a result of the infiltration or infusion of alien cultures, and now for security reasons, in the wake of 9/11.

Obviously, America cannot take in everyone who wishes to come to America, so what should America do? Abraham Lincoln said, “We must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot.” This premonition would hold, if America fails to see the essence of the inexorable providential ideals that is her core. Benjamin Franklin spoke of these ideals when he said, “Tyranny is so generally established in the rest of the world that the prospect of an asylum in America for those who love liberty gives general joy, and our cause is esteemed the cause of all mankind…We are fighting for the dignity and happiness of human nature.”

America must realize that the cause of which Franklin spoke lies in the reality that America is more than a nation; that America is also an idea—founded on the virtue of freedom and individual prosperity. It is more realistic that America sees Franklin’s sentiments as a mandate to establish democracy and free enterprise in places where hitherto there has been tyranny. In so doing, America the country, is essentially extending “the prospect of asylum”, America the idea, to those who love freedom and seek prosperity, in their homelands. It has already happened in India, Japan, and South Korea.

For those with the fortune of welcome to America the country, America must more than ever demand from them the virtues that made America great. As Abraham Lincoln said, “I like to see a man proud of the place he lives. I like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him.”