Why Obama’s Win Is A Victory Against Fear And Ignorance

Like many other people across Europe and around the world, I stayed up all night last Tuesday to watch the results of the US elections. Barack Obama‘s landslide victory was thrilling to watch; the first black President (elect) in a country that had been riven with seemingly insurmountable racial prejudice only a few decades ago. This was history in the making.

And yet, in spite of all the tears and declarations of tectonic shifts in the Western political landscape, I found that one of the most striking and moving moments of the night was, in fact, Senator John McCain‘s concession speech.

f

f

McCain was incredibly gracious and well-spoken. He radiated nobility in the face of crushing defeat. He had the air of a wise old man who, happy that he had been given “a fair hearing” by the American people, accepted his loss with admirable grace and magnanimity.

And yet, what was most surprising, to me at least, was that McCain seemed utterly different from the man we had watched in the Presidential debates and almost all of the media coverage of the electoral race. Indeed, up until Tuesday night, McCain appeared a man bent on employing lowbrow tactics, both in terms of how he addressed the public and attacked his rival.

Both he and (especially) Sarah Palin seemed to use every available opportunity to speak to their public in base terms, employing verbiage of the lowest common denominator rather than properly addressing the relevant issues. In the debates, for example, McCain’s speech was peppered with platitudes; he preceded almost every statement with the words “My friends”, inserted the words “America” and “this great country” repeatedly into sentences where they really had no place, and pinned the addendum “I can fix this problem” onto many points – without having delineated just how he was going to fix that problem.

Sarah Palin’s contentions were even more base; she simply echoed all of the above (adding in “Doggone it” and “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”) while propagating her image as an all-American hockey mom. The lowest point in her debate with Senator Biden had to be when she did a “shout-out” to all the kids in Gladys Wood Elementary school:

f

f

This type of coarse appeal to middle-America had no place in the current political climate, where international crises like the war in Iraq and the global economic meltdown need to be dealt with effectively.

It seemed to me that this approach was a callous ploy on the part of Republican party. They knew, 100%, that a electoral campaign based on honest debate on economic and foreign policy issues was virtually unwinnable. After all, it was eight years of Dubya and GOP policies that had brought America to its knees and added 4 Trillion dollars to the national debt – almost doubling it in just two Presidential terms (In fact, the National Debt Clock in Manhattan recently had have another digit added to it to accommodate the new 10 Trillion figure).

f

f

So, the Republicans decided to argue their case using as little actual data as possible and as many rabble-rousing cliches and platitudes as they could. Also, though they denied playing “the race card”, it’s obvious that it was in fact played many times over, though tacitly so. Pointing out Obama’s highly tenuous link to ex-radical Bill Ayers, the Republicans seized the opportunity to use the word “terrorist” and associate it repeatedly with their rival. This played right into the hands of the many less-informed people who, astonishingly, actually believed that Obama may secretly have been a Muslim.

Soon after that, Obama made the mistake of explaining to supposed everyman Joe the Plumber that he would “spread the wealth around”:

f

f

While this may seem an ostensibly innocuous statement (and even praiseworthy, considering the massive divide between affluence and poverty in Western economies), the Republicans took it and ran with it. Obama was now a Communist Muslim (It brought to mind that episode of the Simpsons where McBain has to defend America from the Commie Nazis). In fact, the highlight of the entire electoral campaign for me was Vice-President elect Joe Biden’s reaction when a right-wing interviewer accused Obama of Marxism outright:

f

f

The thing is, all of these silly attacks and lowbrow wooing of the Bible-Belt seemed to come as second nature to Sarah Palin; she dove into slandering her rivals with aplomb. But McCain never looked entirely comfortable with this approach. During the debates he appeared tense and uptight, and rarely did he achieve the verbal ease of the man onstage with him. He seemed like a fish out of water.

And indeed, even a cursory glance at the man’s record appears to confirm that he may not have been at all suited to the party line he was pushing. A few weeks ago, I watched two excellent documentaries: Taxi To The Dark Side and Shut Up And Sing. Both films looked at contemporary US issues; the former, imprisonment and torture of terrorist suspects and the latter, censorship in the media. Incredibly, John McCain featured in both of them. Even more incredibly, he was a hero in both films. In particular, in Shut Up And Sing, he attacked the the monopoly of radio stations who had refused to play the Dixie Chicks’ music after they had famously spoken out against George W Bush.

In doing so, he seemed to be railing against the mindless, reactionary intolerance that yet exists within certain American cultural strata; people who would go out and actually destroy the artistic work of (and in a few cases, threaten to kill) anyone who dared question a war that seemed to have no valid basis – or the President who had instigated it.

This was the true Maverick John McCain; defender of free speech.

So where did that guy go?

It seems to me that for the duration of the electoral campaign at least, he was railroaded by the pressures of the Republican party. He had to put his most honest convictions aside and take the path of least resistance in order to garner votes. He had to play up the mores and vapid adages of the Middlest of Middle America. He had to play the numbers game. But I’m not sure his heart was in it.

The warmth, humility and compassion of his concession speech showed that McCain is nothing like the frustrated old man we saw in the debates. He is an intelligent and highly skilled man, and probably would have made a good President. But America (and the world) wanted change – which is precisely what the Democratic campaign promised. And based on Obama’s stunning intellectual ability and keen awareness of global issues, I think it’s safe to say that he will be, at the very least, an extremely capable leader.

But the other great thing about Obama’s victory is that it demonstrates that America does not make its decisions based solely on trashy axioms and insults. The bible-bashing, “I can kill ‘cos in God I trust” brigade will not always win out, in spite of pandering to their huge numbers in the most shameless fashion. All of the cries of Muslim, Terrorist, Communist etc, seemed to have little or no impact; if anything, they were perceived as invidious by most and actually hurt the McCain/Palin ticket. The exploitation of ignorance and fear is an incredibly powerful political tool – but in this election, even its extensive use has proven ultimately futile.

And in terms of milestones for the new century, that’s almost up there with the election of the first African-American to the White House.

f

f

Why Fundamentalism Reflects The Unevolved Mind

f

In March 2008, the outspoken Dutch politician Geert Wilders released his short film, entitled “Fitna” onto the Internet. The piece is a savage critique of fundamentalist Islam, and purports that the religion as a whole has an intrinsically bellicose nature.

Wilders supports this suggestion with a selection of warlike quotes from the Koran, such as:

“They but wish that ye should reject faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they, so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever ye find them, and take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

In order to indicate a link between these modern-day atrocities and the age-old texts, he shows us images of 9/11, the Madrid and London bombings and footage of the beheading of hostage Eugene Armstrong. We see clips of various extremist Islamic preachers, proclaiming in no uncertain terms that it is the Muslim’s duty to terminate any non-believers with extreme prejudice; “Annihilate the infidels and the polytheists”, “Allah is happy when non-Muslims get killed”, etc.

Wilders’ film ends with a written postscript:

“It is not up to me, but up to Moslems themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Koran. Muslims want you to make way for Islam, but Islam does not make way for you. The government insists that you respect Islam, but Islam has no respect for you. Islam wants to rule, submit, and seeks to destroy our Western civilization. In 1945, Nazism was defeated in Europe. In 1989, Communism was defeated in Europe. Now, the Islamic ideology has to be defeated.”

The International community was acutely aware of the film’s prospective impact, even before it was released. When a video alleged to be a trailer for the short film was put on YouTube, Pakistan blocked the site from being accessed across the entire country. This actually resulted in the site going offline around the world for two hours.

When the film became available on the Internet, tensions grew. Political condemnation was worldwide and virtually unanimous. Public protests took place in Dam Square, Amsterdam. On the 7th of April, Indonesia blocked and continues to block YouTube because of its refusal to remove Fitna from its servers. Muslim nations have invariably threatened, at the very least, a review of their diplomatic relations with the Netherlands.

And a Fatwa has been put out on the life of Wilders himself. This is no empty threat; another Dutch filmmaker, Theo Vah Gogh (a descendant of Vincent’s family) was murdered after he made a film entitled “Submission”, about the physical and mental abuse that women often suffer in Islamic societies. The film was well received by some, but caused an uproar in Muslim communities.

As a result, on November 2nd 2004, a Muslim extremist named Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in Amsterdam as he cycled to work. Bouyeri shot Van Gogh eight times, slashed his throat (almost to the point of decapitation) and stabbed him in the chest. He also left a note pinned to the body, threatening jihad against Jews and Western governments. That was the climate in which Wilders made his own, arguably more controversial film.

Considering the circumstances, it seems very difficult for any non-religious person to side with Wilders’ film. Certainly, yes, it only presents one side of the story, but regardless of the film, the evidence seems highly stacked in favour of his argument. Fitna‘s featured preachers unequivocally desire conflict against the kuffars (non-believers) and believe that Islam can and should be the world’s sole religion.

The problem is that religious intolerance is considered such an awful taboo, such anathema to the mores of Western civilization, that it allows hate speech, indoctrination and mob mentality to exist untouched as long as it poses as the free expression of religious tenets. This allows aspects of fundamentalism to insinuate themselves into mainstream culture.

Islam is just one example of this phenomenon; Christian fundamentalism is rife in the USA; children are sent to camps to learn total submission to antiquated Catholic values. They speak in glossolalia and shed tears of joy, believing themselves to be conduits of the good Lord’s will. Of course, this all has practical uses, it creates an army of non-questioning youths who disdain abortion, divorce, sex before marriage etc; and who support totally the actions of a Christian president who wants to spread democracy overseas.

(Indeed, there’s been a lot of controversy recently about Barack Obama’s preacher, Jeremiah Wright, mainly because he has stated that 9/11 was a direct result of US’ interference with Middle Eastern nations. The very idea that America may have actually been partially responsible for the attacks that day is abhorrent to good American Christians, so they call the man a “traitor”.)

I don’t think that any religion is immune to this phenomenon (except possibly Buddhism, which embraces the questioning of even its most sacred beliefs), and Islam tends to enforce its rules with particular brutality. And it does so at the expense of countries that allow it to flourish. Indeed, the tremendous hypocrisy is that it abuses the open laws of countries that allow people of varying religions to settle there. They are allowed to practice their religions unmolested, and then preach hatred against the openness of the very cultures that allow them the freedoms of speech to do so in the first place.

I’m aware that it’s quite difficult to make this argument without getting into countrified “Not In My Back Yard” moralities. But there is a line. For example, the Latvian government recently jailed an Englishman for urinating on the Freedom Monument in Riga. The Freedom Monument is a tribute to those who fought and died in the Latvian War of Independence, and some drunken guy taking a piss on it was a terrible insult to the Latvian people. The Latvian foreign minister called the English “pigs” and threw the man in jail. And there was no international condemnation of the action.

On the other hand, when an English teacher in the Sudan allowed a class to name a teddy bear “Mohammad”, she was convicted of “insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs” by Islamic authorities. She was sentenced to 15 days in jail and was deported upon release. Not only that, but

“…approximately 400 protesters took to the streets, some of them waving swords and machetes, demanding Gibbons’s execution after imams denounced her during Friday prayers. During the march, chants of “Shame, shame on the UK”, “No tolerance – execution” and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad” were heard. Witnesses reported that government employees were involved in inciting the protests.” Wikipedia

Wanting to end someone’s life because of the name they gave a teddy bear suggests something more to me than simple religious offence. I think that many people, and certainly those who subscribe to the fundamentalist aspects of any religion, are assuming a personality type; the kind that tends towards the total abdication of individual responsibility.

True responsibility is an imposing prospect. It involves a lot of work. It involves searching the Gods, quite literally, for the meaning of life. It involves the realization that everyone else’s actions make just as much sense to them as yours do to you. It involves the admission that you, and you alone, are responsible for your actions; if you insult your friend, beat your wife, kill someone, it’s because you chose to do it, not because some ancient text gave you permission. It’s liberating, but it also deletes a huge portion of one’s ego and cuts you adrift from the woolly cotton braids of what at least purports to be “tradition”.

In that sense, it’s interesting that the word Islam actually means “submission”. Because that’s what fundamentalism demands. And it’s attractive. It entices so many because it offers the promise of an easier life. It offers a psychological return to the womb, where some all-powerful entity will provide you with all you need to survive; you don’t need to make any decisions for yourself, because everything has been already decided for you.

The problem with that, though, is that when these people see others taking responsibility for their lives, exploring the wonders and limits of existence, it drives them hog-wild. It wounds them so deeply because in their heart of hearts, they know that they are missing out. If there is any spark of human curiosity left in them, it flares up and reminds them that they have cravenly abandoned their duties. It’s like ol’ Fred Nietszche says; “Fear is the mother of morality”.

It seems similar, to me at least, to the actions of the classic sociopath. This person indulges in anti-social behaviour, but, when confronted with the the truth (or any criticism whatsoever) of their actions, reacts with furious disdain. It’s similar to a child who has been caught lying, but who continues lying to maintain their innocence. They know they’re in the wrong, and the only way they can react is with anger, tears and even violence.

Fortunately for religious zealots, this anger, these tears and violence can be channeled through the untouchable medium of religious outrage. Claiming insult of one’s theistic persuasion is thus used as the basis to lash out at others for any and all of man’s frailties; sexual frustration, mortality, depression, fear. All of this encourages a regression to tribalism – mob mentalities that rail against centuries of progress in racial integration. The non-believers are less worthy than believers, and that’s non-negotiable.

To reiterate, this is certainly not confined to Islam. And like other religions, Islam has an introspective, mystic tradition that encourages reflection, non-violence and self-discovery (Sufism). Christianity had a similar tradition, known as Gnosticism. In fact, it could be argued that religion regularly seems to reflect different personalities, or at least, personalities at different levels of maturity. People are drawn to whatever aspects of  their religion that tend to echo their own beliefs and experiences. If you desire peace and love, both Christianity and Islam can be argued to justify that. If you want violence and bloodshed, both can be argued to justify that, too.

(I wonder if so many of these old religious texts, written in such vague aphorisms, are actually meant to be gauges of man’s maturity as a civilization. Since they seem to be textual Rorschach tests, people tend to draw from them what they will; love, hatred, peace, violence, whatever.)

But what if the believers in violence and bloodshed start to encroach on the progress of peace? Well, that’s the heart of the problem; the cultures that have embraced racial and religious integration are slow to do anything for fear of violating their own democratic ideals. In doing so, they may allow hate speech to flow and the warlike traits of the collective psyche to grow.

I recently came across a proverb that went something like this:

“The problem with the world is that wise people are open-minded and unsure, but the foolish are absolutely certain.”

I think that sums it up. The heads of our democracies must be wary of and penalize those who would preach racism, insularity and violence. Doing so does not violate the tenets of democracy, it encourages them.

As I have argued, religion tends to reflect aspects of the individual personality. In the same way that the most peaceful person may sometimes feel a jolt of fury or jealousy, they must dispel these feelings instead of letting them fester and grow. But that involves a personal decision and personal action.

And it’s action that must be taken; otherwise, the fears and tribalisms can take hold from within and undo so much of the progress of personal and social evolution. Although a world of total peace and integration would be wonderful, we haven’t reached it yet. And if the road to it is left unpoliced, we never will.

f

f

Further Viewing:

Geert Wilders’ “Fitna”

Channel 4 Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Documentary featuring undercover investigation into the influence of religious extremism throughout the UK.