Category: Politics

The Burden of Leadership: Hypocricy Might Be Ok (?)

My cat is sick. I have to take her to the vet to get bloodwork once a month. On the way back just now the radio station was discussing that people seem to be swearing more now a days. They blamed it on the recession. As evidence, they played a bleeped out tape recording of Fox news anchor Shepard Smith posturing about the U.S. torture policy. You can see the Huff Post article here. There is ‘right to the point’ clip in the huff post article. Here is the whole segment:

I can’t help thinking:

Where were you four years ago, ya hypocrit?

That said the issue of torture is not easy. It’s very clear, morally, but it’s not simple. It’s like killing civilians.

I saw an episode of The West Wing once (greetings Professor Sorkin; kind of like Professor Falkin in War Games) in which Bartlett decided to kill a ‘known terrorist’ who was an un-triable foreign national. Perhaps think Ghadaffi, or Hussein.

“You have to do this” says the Chief of Staff.

“Why?” say Bartlett.

“Because you won the election” says the Chief of Staff.

nagasaki-before-afterPunishing/killing people without trial, without probable cause is very bad. Not ok. Killing civilians is very bad. Not ok. Part of the outrage over Vietnam was that we were killing civilians.

But this is territory our nation has grappled with (I think) every generation. For example: to end World War II we dropped nuclear bombs that wiped out two entire cities in Japan. The image to the right is Nagasaki before and after the blast.

We killed entire populations of non-combatants in order to save lives going forward. Was that ok? Let’s assume that it did in fact end the war early. Was it ok?

There are moral absolutes in this world that every individual should adhere to, and be held to. Oddly enough, it is harder for our leaders – in our service – to live up to the same absolutes.

I am personally, absolutely, against torture and killing of non-combatants. I am not confused there. And I do not believe that the war on terror justified the practice. I think it was a clear abuse of power. But perhaps, sometimes, it really is necessary to pick the lesser of two evils. I believe that’s why they call it ‘The Burden of Leadership.’

Does DC Need Arts Advocacy?

Bill Wilson and Ebby Thacher, founders of AAI am the chair of the DC Advocates for the Arts. I REALLY care about the arts. The studio – the dance studio – is the place I feel most at home in the world. I believe in the arts, because they are my home. But you don’t make much money in the dance studio. You support the dance studio time (mostly) outside of the studio – through grants, commissions, performances, and teaching. That money… it’s hard to get.

I’ve gotten really involved in arts advocacy, in part, because I believe in myself. Advocating for the arts en masse has been a way for me to defend my own choices. But at this point I’m uncertain what I’m fighting for. Funding is the only issue I’ve been able to get people to talk about regarding Arts Advocacy. Not priorities in funding, not efficiency in funding, just funding.

I believe DC does need arts advocacy. But not to advocate for funding. Due in no small part to the granting programs that spend the money, over the last ten years there are a larger number of mid-sized organizations drawing funding with professional development staff, and the stream of small orgs and individual artists stays constant. Nobody talks about patronage, cause it doesn’t serve them to do so, but there is a reason why more money is spent in NW DC, and the reason is the relationships that exist. Not the quality of the artists, or the possibility for arts businesses. Collegial support systems develop between staff, consultants and arts administrators, and no rules exist to manage those relationships toward the public good. Arts businesses are just businesses.

This city has – per capita – a very large arts scene, as appropriate to a locale where a major revenue stream is tourism. But how do we efficiently ensure that every child receives real arts education? How many stable mid/large sized organizations should the city be supporting? How can funding programs really encourage the kind of art that will best serve this city? What categories of art do we need to encourage to best serve this city? How can the arts leverage community development? How can we maximize government investment in the arts for revenue growth?

We cannot expect politicians to actually be experts on everything under the sun. Advocates must inform and educate themselves so that they can contribute to the dialogues, and pressures, which politicians manage on a daily basis. Does dc need arts advocacy? Yes. Because the politically expedient decision and the right decision are sometimes two different things. We might wish that arts business leaders would selflessly contribute to open ongoing intelligent policy discussions, and the needs of the city. But perhaps it’d be better to plan within the reality that exists, and build a broad, participation-driven advocacy organization.

For Whom

I was at a meeting recently – actually about three years ago now – at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The discussion was focused on what will happen to Cuba after Castro. All of the panelists believed that post-Castro the government there will be run by the (current) dissidents. I was surprised by the agreement amongst the expert opinions on the panel, in part because it didn’t match up with my (limited) understanding of Cuban culture. More than anything, I left thinking that:

Capitalism always thinks its right; its governments job to keep Capitalism in its place.

I love capitalism. I love capitalism, but it just doesn’t solve every problem. Capitalism is not necessarily a good model for education, science, the arts, or government. The purpose of government is the service of its people. All of them. The purpose of capitalism is the service of whoever owns stuff, or wants to own stuff. This is not everybody.

Capitalism is great, in part, because it encourages efficiency. Efficiency is necessary to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. But capitalism can’t tell us how to spend our money. Capitalism isn’t an ethos, or a system of governance. The founders established a system of governance that promises we will all have the opportunity to pursue the lives we want. They didn’t promise well get the lives we want, and they didn’t specify many of the details of the economic system we should use.

Increasing opportunity for achievement is the measure of a great society. For whom does the government toil? It toils for thee. The recent G-20 summit, and the peaceful transition now occurring in Cuba, make clear that the modern U.S. interpretation of Capitalism’s relationship to government is not universal.

Post-script: 4/13/09: It’s wonderful to see that our President gets this. HuffingtonPost just reported that Obama is (simply, quietly) easing restrictions against Cuba.

Part 2 of a small series on “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. You can see Part 1 here.