Context Matters

I was going to take time to respond to many of the major editorials out there by neo-conservatives on what the United States should do about Iran. It is a rather inane dialogue, where if you say ‘freedom and democracy’ enough times, the Ayatollah gets scared and doesn’t suppress his people. I would say the Republicans don’t remember Hungary in 1956, where we did some rather idiotic hope-raising, leading to mass slaughter. I would say more, Matt Duss at American Prospect, however, does it for me and better:

In an interview with Radio Free America, Sen. John McCain responded to fellow Republican Sen. Richard Lugar’s suggestion that President Obama shouldn’t get involved in the disputed election by saying, "I’m sure that this was the same comment that was made when President Reagan went to Berlin and said, ‘Take down this wall. [sic]‘ I’ve seen this movie before. America stands for freedom, for democracy."

Indeed, we’ve all seen this movie before. It’s the one where conservatives deploy a potted history of the Cold War — in which Reagan spoke and the walls came tumbling down — to cast international politics as a zero-sum contest between good and evil, and to cow progressives into a more aggressive rhetorical posture toward America’s adversary of the moment. It is usually hidden under the guise of "solidarity with captive peoples" and absent any genuine consideration of the practical effects on the peoples concerned.

Needless to say, this comic book version of history leaves out an enormous amount. What’s missing is not only U.S. Cold War policy before Reagan (in which Americans of both parties moved in fits and starts to both contain and engage the Soviet Union) but also some of the more inconvenient aspects of Reagan’s own presidency — such as his silence over U.S. ally Saddam Hussein’s various acts of mass murder, his conversion to the cause of arms control and outreach to Gorbachev (for which he was condemned by neoconservatives as a "traitor to anti-Communism"), and, of course, his trading of arms to Iran and diversion of the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan Contras.

My only addition to this as follows: does anybody think American foreign policy worked in the last eight years? If so, why are we listening to the people that wrote the policy?

I’ll let this one speak for himself, it is quite entertaining:

It’s always been my personal belief that JFK is a tad too revered in American history, particularly by the Democratic party. Still, his foresight into understanding the power of space travel and the inspiration that manned travel to other celestial bodies would have was incredible. Today, NASA launched an unmanned rocket to the Moon, the first in a decade, in order to begin planning for a 2020 manned landing.

The occasion reminded me of one of the great speeches of the 20th century:

I don’t believe we’ve had a president that has ever set a goal as bold or ambitious since. History vindicated his ideas and in the long-term, I believe history is going to vindicate him rather strongly as a visionary for mankind. I understand that many on the left have derided the idea of NASA and manned missions to other celestial bodies as folly, yet on the practical level, the economic numbers are there: the multiplier for funding for NASA is 7.  For every dollar put in, the GDP increases by seven. It is the highest multiplier available in the history of government investiture in the United States.

Equally important is the idea of expansion; opponents claim it will never happen, that man cannot and shall not live amongst the stars. Yet the history of humankind is full of uncommon hopes and improbable victories. Why should we ever stop? Why should we contend ourselves to what we have?

The survival of our species is connected to the idea of space; one never knows what sort of catastrophic event could happen that could wipe out humanity in a single moment. The stars provide humankind with one more chance, one possibility of escape.

For if we are all that is out there, we have an obligation to discover it all. The innate curiosity, the search for something more, to always discover that next horizon; it is the source of human brilliance and strength.

I’m a Star Trek fan, so I must admit that this vision is a powerful one: ‘To boldly go where no one has gone before’.

America must be bold, not just in space, but in all its actions. We must become a nation with purpose, strength and resolve to push out against our self-imposed limitations and explore the next mountain. Space is just one theater; society, education, health care, community development, etc. serve as others.

This post rambles and I should end it at here. However, I cannot help but wonder if Americans will ever again be bold, even as the times demand bold action.

We were capable once. We can do it again.

I’ve been rather busy the last couple of days, so it has prevented me from posting. I assume most people have been following the Iranian situation closely. I don’t have much to add on the factual details on the ground: Nico at HuffingtonPost, Andrew at TheAtlantic have been doing a beyond phenomenal job that will hopefully earn one of them a Pulitzer.

My interest right now is on the debate in the United States over what course of action the US should undertake. The Neo-conservatives are split between wanting to show up with tanks and stop the basji, or whether we should accept the defeat of Mousavi and the fact that Iran is a member of the axis of evil.

All of this goes back to the idea that the United States must have an answer to everything that is going on in the world, which itself brings complications to the table. Globalization has made staying on the sidelines incredible difficult.

Prior to about 1980, nations generally minded their own business, except to colonize and invade. You wouldn’t have expected the Japanese government to have a response to something that’s happening in Eritea. I’m not too sure you would today ask for the Japanese government to have a response, but that’s another question entirely.

Indeed, throughout much of world history, only several conditions implied that a nation had to have some sort of policy response to an occurrence in another nation:

1. Control – It is a smaller nation that has historically depended on you for some sort of sustenance or lead.
2. Self-interest – You have the ability to gain something from intervening in the affairs of another state.

In the post-WWII world, there are two more conditions:

3. Moral – Claims to moral influence based on the behavior of the nation. Very few nations have historically been able to make this claim.
4. Hegemonic – Based on the ability to actively affect issues everywhere; the basis of this is the potential to act and the assumption that most issues in the world affect you.

Given the situation in Iran, the following actors can be seen as interacting: the United Nations, based on a moral and political actor as the representative of human rights on the world at large; the United States, based on hegemonic considerations; Russia, based on self-interest; Some Western European Nations, based on their moral claims of arbitration.

The problem is that the conception of interference has evolved from Western power dynamics, particularly the United States and its hegemonic conception. Borne out of the aftermath of WWII, American foreign policy thinkers have effectively been able to demand that the United States have a position on the internal on goings of almost every other nation.

Furthermore, nobody likes it when a state interferes in the affairs of another state, even if it’s just words. The US, in particular, has a lot of baggage as an actively hegemonic force, rather than just as a state that has historically taken sides.

Hence, why President Obama’s comments in this situation must come off as light: the American public demands some sort of response and so he will be asked questions about it. It’s the nature of the ballgame. Iranians don’t want the United States anywhere near this, other than as some sort of neutral arbiter. The neo-conservatives, on the other hand, seem to want the US to act based on self-interest, hegemony and moral weight, which dooms us to a policy of contradiction and self-righteousness as we pillage the land and do what we want with it.

Most people in the world don’t believe we are neutral. Particularly in the aftermath of the Bush administration, I assume most believe we are looking for an excuse to invade their nations. Iranians, in particular, don’t see good things with American involvement: the opposition knows that the US has historically supported dictatorships, military intervention, etc. The opposition may look up to President Obama, but most of Iran still continues to see the US and the West, writ large, as an imperialist force. Hence, why the reformers want the US and the West to keep quiet.

Finally, there’s the perceived American power, almost nation-wide, of moral involvement. The US historical claims to be a center for Democracy and freedom are rendered absurd almost anywhere else in the world, yet this narrative has resonated quite strongly in the American population. This makes it really problematic when Americans, not just conservatives, make moral claims to the need for involvement. This is particular true as we see the stunning images coming from Iran, which seems to imply that a people’s is a oppressed (which they are) and that somebody needs to save them (which they don’t), and thus, the hegemonic and the moral merge into one strain.

All of this turns into one messy situation, with various groups and political orientations demanding some sort of policy from the American government as to what they think and will do, which is almost opposite to what actually needs to be done: nothing. Yet the pressure will remain there to act.

As I mentioned above, globalization is complicating all of this further by giving us instant access; Twitter provides Americans and the world a peak into the world of what’s going on in Iran, which, through shared mediums and humanization, makes individuals wish to be involved in finding a solution to end the violence. Thus, what I frame as the 5th condition of involvement, which is the empathetic. It’s why more governments across the world are forming some sort of response, at least in the vocal level, including Canada, France, England, Germany, among others. In the United States particularly, which recently saw an election where the young participated in never-before-seen rates, the images of students being attacked provide particular resonance. Even amongst those that don’t believe in American hegemony or that we have a moral claim to action, there is still the idea that we need to find a way, because they are our peers.

Isolationism is long dead and it’s not coming back. I’m not too sure a citizenry would allow you to remain isolationist. The question then becomes: if you are an administration, and all empirical data says it’s bad to be involved, how do you satisfy your population while still actually contributing to those that you wish to support, even if you think your blatant support won’t help?

President Obama’s challenge has been this. I think he’s done a remarkable job. The only thing we can state are: we dislike violence and that people should be allowed to choose their government. Those two basic principles are about the only ones where we have even a vague credibility on and they are rather neutral in the situation.

That’s the best we can do for Iran from the state level. Long term, we should be developing tools that allow the walls of cyber-communication to be brought down, which could serve as a potential tool for protesters. However, in almost all of these circumstances, our involvement would only hurt the pro-democratic side. Please remember that.

Keep on following. Keep on watching. Try not to ask President Obama to do anything that would actively destroy the reform movement by asking for direct involvement.

I don’t have much to add. I only have sources to offer:

Andrew Sullivan – He has been amazing.
NIAC blog – North Iranian American Council Blog
English language Twitters
Tehran Live – Constant feed information.
The Cable at Foreign Policy
http://www.stratfor.com/theme/iranian_elections

The best thing you can do right now is to read up. Speak up. Get everybody informed. The US needs to find a way to support this without tainting the reform movement.

I don’t have much analysis right now. It’s clear that there was a lot of interference in the election, yet I wouldn’t put much stock in the official results just yet. There is going to be arbitration between the Guardian Council, the Assembly of Experts and the Supreme Leader in deciding what is going on. The early numbers seemed to suggest that the counters were picking arbitrary figures and giving the vote as proportioned earlier. A close Ahmadinejad win would have been one thing: this is a landslide, with numerous irregularities, voter intimidation and fraud. Mousavi hasn’t been seen in awhile, with conflicting reports of whether he is in detention or not. His election headquarters was attacked.

I’m going to paste a bunch of links, because that’s the best way I can help anybody inform themselves right now:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/6/13/25050/0813#readmore
http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/140066/sitrep/20090612_iran_police_clear_out_mousavis_headquarters_source
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090612_iran_security_incidents_tehran
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090612_iran_text_mousavis_speech
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090612_irans_presidential_election_09_timeline_events
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/FullcoverageStoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=af21e71e-4f4a-4138-82f3-8832b14a0e3dIranianpresidentialelection_Special&Headline=Iran’s+election+result+staggers+analysts
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/12/iran_elections_update

Three up:

Jesse Hyde at Men’s Style reports on a trio of teenage hit men.
Tom Scocca compares the advice that two NBA Finals coaches could give.
The New York Times describes recent Security Council votes on North Korea.

Andrew Sullivan recently advocated coming out. Jeff Pearlman, a Sports Illustrated writer, wrote on his blog the necessity of coming out. I’d like to think to agree with that. Yet, it’s a tad more complicated than that. I’m also not necessarily sure what I feel on this.

The question is: when one discovers that they are in a closet, why do they remain there? I imagine, with a supportive family structure and well recognized, public acceptance of homosexuality, nobody would actually stay in the closet. That’s not true for most individuals. There is a very early recognition of the deviance of your behavior: throughout your life, you understand that as a boy, your job is to eventually marry a girl. It’s simple, it’s accepted and it’s not discussed as anything other than the way it is.

Homosexuality, in some places, isn’t talked about at all, though there is a vague understanding of its negativity. I lived in South Texas, where it was an openly discussed, negative status that involved gender bending, sickness, perversion and immorality. When you first recognize yourself as one of those, it’s a very frightening time.

I remember the tears; I knew who I was and I had been taught to be ashamed. The simple childhood slurs of ‘gay, faggot, joto’ stung every time I heard them. In retrospect, I know it had little to do with my supposed homosexuality and more to do with any natural difference in behavior: I was geeky and intelligent, a little weird, and so it happened.

Yet, every time they would say those words, I panicked: did they know me better than I knew myself? Was there something I was signaling to people that made them think I was a homosexual, when I knew I was? Eventually, I realized that even as my social peers used the idea of homosexuality as a slur, the adults didn’t take it as a signifier of my condition. That’s who I was really scared: the authority, the power of contempt and safety. How would my mother react? How would my father? Would I be abandoned? Would I be beaten? The fear is everywhere. Every semblance of behavior becomes scrutinized. I remember looking at my jeans and hoping that it wasn’t a covert signal I was sending.

Being in the closet makes you an expert at lying. It makes you skilled in the art of illusion and pretend, manifestly by its nature. You have to continue the sham that you know others expect. In fact, you have to become better at being straight than they are. Sexual prowess, hanging out with girls, the heteronormative world that you define yourself becomes even more suffocating. There are nights of self-hate, frustration. The days are filled with lust, particularly prevalent in a teenage boy, for another that you cannot but help desire. Every time I looked at a boy, I was terrified that the stare would be met would public confirmation of my societal deviance. I began to turn away, to stop looking, to stop searching for hope. Nobody needed to close the door for me; I gladly bolted it locked from the inside.

The closet becomes your own prison and it changes you. It is a constant siege, without end or relief. You push away from any real connections: the level of trust is an inch deep. New experiences are only new complications to how you have to hide. It is like an ever-changing puzzle: you are placing the final pieces on the wall protecting your secret, and suddenly, it expands. It makes doing new things unwelcomed, filled with the paranoia of potential failure.

I know this from my own youth. To those reading this that know me, it might be surprising to see the inner anguish, but I tried to create a wall, as high and as thick as was possible. Junior high was complete and utter anguish. I made every possible attempt at deception, scene-creation, and yes, even fake romances, both public and private. Every time I pulled it off, I smirked. It was another day of relief.

The fear was compounded by the fact that I felt I was working for my bed, food and comfort every day, by ensuring the secret. I wasn’t scared of what my friends would say: they were already objects from my continued treatment of them as barriers to avoid, not as friends to hold. It was the family finding out and pushing me out the door, crushing the few dreams that I had.

It becomes a very lonely exercise of futility. It was unbearable; the ability to be in a room full of people, individuals that held the label of ‘friends’, and still not be able to enjoy their company without the filter of fear. It made for very lonely nights on my computer, seeking the companionship of people that could not harm and investing myself emotionally in situation and beings who had no power over me. I discovered role-play, immersed myself in gaming, and only really released emotionally to a bunch of wires and tubes.

High school was confusing: being in love with your best friend while attempting to secure the foundation for future success is a tight-rope. I let more people into the secret: individuals that had taken years of practice to cultivate. Every time I opened up, I felt a little freer: the closet was less restrained. Yet, my paranoia would only increase: I understood very quickly that increasing comfort also meant more risk, for others would not share in my delusion of fear.

It also became an issue when I fell in love with my best friend, and would have been willing to do anything for him. I felt my first love, and it wasn’t for a girl; it was for a boy and he had been one of the few people I assumed I could trust. Yet, I also knew that I had done unforgiveable things to him earlier in life, including using him as a public scapegoat, to continue the appearance of heterosexuality. On September 1^st, 2005, I told him. Our relationship was okay. Yet the love I hoped for was never there: he was straight, and all that effort was for naught.

I eventually came out to my mother on June 26^th, 2007. It was an interesting day. The reaction wasn’t violent, it wasn’t horrifying, it wasn’t even that interesting. A couple of tears and we were done with it. So many years of fear, dislike, self-hatred, paranoia and the endless nights of sadness and despair all seemed so stupid. If only I had asked earlier; yet the mind of somebody in the closet isn’t developed in the rational realm of adulthood, complete with individual responsibility. It comes as an early adolescent, in the realm of new hormones and devices that you can’t explain. The siege was broken.

Being in the closet is an irreparably harmful status. It traumatizes the individual for life. It traumatized me for my life. I sense it in my relations to others: can I fully trust them? I’m hesitant to engage with new people and I’m lost socially when I’m around more than 8 people. It also gave me the ability to lie and to lie easily. The lies are completely utilitarian, without remorse for the actions I had taken. Morals are easier to modify, I believe, when you’ve been under siege for more than a third of your life. When I see friends being able to sit down with someone they’ve never met and talked to them, without any context, it still scares me. I can’t do that. I demand shared context with every individual I know, a side effect of a time where shared interests was the only aspect of communication that I had accepted as not trying to out me.

What does this all mean? To a teenager, this means that the closet has consequences that aren’t as obvious when you spend every day in it. For an adult, it means that if you can, come out: it is easier outside of it, particularly if you can secure your own livelihood. If you’re a potential role model, unlike Pearlman, I don’t think you should merely come out: you have an obligation to do so. Yet, I understand it’s not up to me to make that bargain: indeed, I’m just another obstacle in the process of protecting an identity. The nuisance of individuals involve in gay rights is just another roadblock to being able to spend the night with another man while being able to hide it during the day.

I don’t blame you. I probably would commit the same choice. It’s the siege, the never ending bombardment from reality and society that keeps you hidden, scared, terrified and traumatized. There is no hope in it. None at all. Yet it’s more comforting than the fear of rejection, abuse, and hatred.

Should we know hope? Should we give into despair? I wish my answer was more declarative, less waffling, and far more indignant. I wish I could stand up and demand that they come out of the closet: I can’t. Perhaps the closest thing to any action is to write this down, to leave it up so that maybe a gay teenager discovers it, and sees the ramifications of being in the closet. I don’t blame anybody for being it. It’s the wrong decision for most; those with actually abusive parents and real fears of being kicked out should probably not do it. Though, the fear is again, perceptual. Staying in the closet might protect you in that end, but it isn’t a free trade-off.

The point in all of this is that the decision to come out will never be seen as a political one: the idea that somebody immersed in the closet, under constant siege, would ever willingly have themselves shot is laughable. It’s not a fair claim to make upon them.

That said, I think Mr.  Sullivan  glorifies the archetype of the self-reliant homosexual a little too much. It’s not born out of magic, and there is a real payment that is felt in trying to accomplish that. It seems he avoided paying it, or at least, he publicly avoids complicating it. I on the other hand, am less shy:

I’ll always be under siege. I know that. Accepting it is not a fair proposition.

I’m not too sure how I feel about this, other than the commercialism of Americans seems to only increase every other month, even in a recession. Still, here’s Cowboys Stadium, opening this fall. Have fun, Cowboys fans.

There is something deeply disconcerting about the idea that those in the military are the best that American society have to offer, without fail:

For the record, I find what the soldiers of the American military do as brave, commendable and without a doubt, a fine service to their nation. However, it also strikes me as unfair to many aspects of our society to say these are the best that we have to offer: what of the doctor that works 16 hours in a trauma center in an lower-income neighborhood? How about the administrator of a soup kitchen or the director of a woman’s shelter?

These are all admirable positions in our society, dedicated to providing support to the most vulnerable and hope to those that have it least. It’s a problem in national discourse when we can only see the sacrifice of our military, and not of many others in society, who engage in just as selfless and thankless tasks that assure our nation’s continued prosperity and stability.

This rose-coloured look at the American military also gives us a blind spot: we forget about their mental and physical well being once they get back, and we assume that these warriors, the best our society has to offer, can always deal with the ramifications of returning home after years in a war zone.

The soldiers are human. They should be be treated as such. The top ‘percentile’ of American society is indefinable. We shouldn’t promote one group of selfless individuals over another.