STRENGTH

I do not see Putin as a strong man.  I see him as a man obsessed with a false idea of strength.  He has hammered body and mind into tempered steel, and made of himself a rigid wall that no humanity may penetrate.

Those in this country who rattle their swords and make public proclamations about the President's weakness do themselves and the country a disfavor.  Do they imagine themselves to possess the strength they accuse the President of lacking?  Making a show of it is the easy part of strength.  Exercising it wisely is the hard part.

Real strength, as I see it, comes from the collaboration of mind and heart.  It's a consistency, an understanding of how to proceed with thoughtful and, yes, compassionate persistence; a steadiness of purpose, a clarity of intention, and a willingness to admit mistakes and change course when circumstances require; it's a knowledge of when to go forward and when to retreat; a rejection of rash and foolish judgment, of thoughtless, unskillful action; it's a sense of values and a commitment to justice.

Putin is Russia's George W. Bush on steroids.  Bush thought of himself--and wanted to be seen--as a strong man.  Those around him, the Cheneys and the Rumsfelds and their ilk, saw themselves in the same light.  They were false-hearted warriors, all.  Their eventual defeat is the proof of their ultimate weakness.

Our current company of saber-rattlers would do well to keep quiet for long enough to read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."

UNREASON

They seemed like a nice enough couple.  They had been sitting at the table next to us at the Cafe Zinc, the favorite outdoor hangout for good food at breakfast and lunch time in Laguna Beach--a couple in, say, late middle age, rather stocky, both of them, and speaking with a distinctively Russian accent.  About to leave, they stopped by at our table to admire George--a not unusual event, since George is a cute little dog who invariably manages to attract attention--and the man squatted down to pet him.

Which led, as it so often does, to the opening up of a friendly conversation.  We are always curious about people, where the come from, what they do, their families, and we soon discovered that they had escaped the Soviet Union in the late 1970s and had emigrated to Israel, where they spent the next sixteen years before crossing the Atlantic and settling, finally, in the United States.  We heard about their two sons--the first, born in the USSR, had spent his formative years in Israel.  The younger, born in Israel, was brought up largely in the US.  One of them, we heard, was a Republican, the other a Democrat.

Which led us, unfortunately, into politics.  That, too, started out calmly enough.  Until our new friend flew suddenly into an unprovoked and totally unpredictable rage.  What was the difference, he demanded to know, between Obama and Osama bin Laden?  Initially, foolishly, I thought that this was a joke, with some kind of witty answer.  But no.  The man was serious.  There was no difference between the two of them, he yelled, his face now scarlet and distorted with fury; none at all.  (I'm not exaggerating!)  This Barack Hussein Obama was an Arab, no different from the rest of them.  He was no friend of Israel... Between the Russian accent, now more pronounced than ever, and the rage, he soon became more and more incoherent, and it was only the tenor of his rant that was understandable, not its argument.

The man was coming, clearly, from a place of very deep emotion.  No rational argument could possibly have engaged or satisfied him.  We have heard that there are people--many of them--who harbor such thoughts and feelings, but we had never before encountered someone not only willing to admit to them, but utterly convinced of their incontrovertibility.  So there was really nothing we could say, except that we understood the depth of his emotion--but that we totally disagreed with him.  This, of course, did nothing to calm his rage.

But at least he had the good sense, after a while, to back away, to make some space between himself and us, and stood glowering a few feet from us while his wife took over and attempted, by way of an apology, to explain.  Something--I suspect a kind of protectiveness--had been unlocked in her and, once started, she was simply unable to stop.  By this time I had given up listening to what she was trying to say, and simply waited for the energy to run out.  And, when it didn't, and seemed not about to, and she kept running on and on, I found an excuse for Ellie and myself to hurry off from there and left her in mid-sentence.

It was a rather disconcerting experience.  Even knowing that such unreason plays a frighteningly large role in our political discourse, we usually find ourselves talking to those people who agree with us.  It's rare to find ourselves in conversation with the opposition.  We'd like to think that, if that happened, we would be able to find common ground and discuss our differences with calm and reason, that we could listen to arguments on the other side with an open mind and learn from them.  In this instance, that was clearly not the case.

I know that not every conservative believes as fervently as this man that there is no difference between President Obama and Osama bin Laden.  But the conversation did bring me to reflect on my perception that, in our current political debate, one side is reasonable, and the other is not.  I am distressed to hear the expression of similar unreason and barely concealed hatred from the lips of many Republicans these days--and not only the back-benchers and their vociferous support base, but from the Republican leadership.  No matter how hard I try to see things from their point of view, for the most part I am simply unable to do so.  Their words, their policies, their proposals for the most part fail the test of ordinary common sense.  If I learned anything from our experience at the Cafe Zinc, it is that sheer unreason has become a significant driving force in the affairs of the inhabitants of this planet, and that it threatens to destroy all possibility of discourse.

(After writing this piece, yesterday, ready for posting this morning, I happened to catch a few excerpts from both the Chuck Hagel hearings in Washington and the gun control debate.  Unreason, again, seemed to prevail.  The anger--and there is plenty of it in both situations--again seems to be coming from one direction only: from the right.  And again, the Obama hatred erupts in toxic outbursts.  His reelection is apparently a grievous insult to the righteous right, and he will not be forgiven for beating them.  Forgotten is the fact that he speaks and acts in the interests of the majority of voters in this country--and that he himself is a supremely reasonable man who argues cogently for what he believes.  What could be more infuriating than that?)

REPUBLICANS

I need to say it: I find it hard to understand "Republicans."

I'm sad to hear myself generalize in this way--indeed, I have long resisted saying it--but it's the plain, honest truth: I find it impossible to understand them.  I'm sure that the vast majority of them individually are good-hearted, hard-working, decent people.  It's when they become "Republicans" that the trouble starts.  Since Lyndon Johnson, for example, there have been only three Democratic presidents, and "Republicans" have done their utmost not only to obstruct their every initiative, but to personally destroy each one: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama.  The venom with which these leaders have been treated and with which their very legitimacy has been challenged is simply beyond my understanding.  For sure, I myself have been guilty of lampooning their Republican counterparts; but I like to think that I have done so without hatred and without questioning their legitimacy.  (Here I must confess to an exception in the case of George W. Bush, whose original (s)election over Al Gore by the US Supreme Court I did consider a sham.)

But it's not just about the presidency.  There's a meanness of spirit that I find hard to understand.  The recent snide comments about Hillary Clinton's illness are but one example.  The eagerness to pile on in the attacks on Susan Rice another.  It manifests in the "Republican" attitude to the poor, the destitute, the unemployed, the hungry--all fellow Americans less fortunate than themselves.  That they were so willing, in the recent "fiscal cliff" fiasco, to deprive these people of their basic livelihood speaks, to my mind, to an incomprehensible lack of simple human compassion.  That their congressional leader, Eric Cantor, was so willing to scuttle the eventual, hard-won agreement on a compromise does not speak well of his concern for the country he was elected to serve.  That their Speaker, John Boehner, acted with such contempt to refuse either discussion or vote on the hurricane Sandy bill is emblematic, in my view, of the small minds and mean spirits of his colleagues.

Consider the spectacle of this past election.  The "Republican" candidates were vicious in the rhetoric they directed not only at Democrats but at each other.  They struggled to outdo each other in sheer vitriol and smug self-certitude.  They castigated whole segments of the American public and felt free to insult women with misogynistic glee.  Without embarrassment, they embraced the ignorance of those who deny overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of religious fervor, in order to appease a "base" of right-wing extremists.  They continue to heap contempt and scorn on the United Nations, and act as though no other country in the world is worthy of American consideration--let alone aid.

And don't tell me that it's the same on both sides, that it's politics as usual.  It's not.  Consider, for example, the clear evidence of our current President's generosity of spirit and readiness to compromise, to the point that he is willing to risk the wrath of his own party and expose himself to Republican attacks for his lack of leadership.

I'm sorry, it's not nice to generalize in this way; and the Buddhist principle of "right speech" requires us to moderate the way in which we speak of others.  It does not, however, forbid us from speaking the truth, and the truth is that these people have simply been behaving badly as human beings.  They value their rigid principles more than their humanity.  They are unkind in word and action, both.  As I say, I find it impossible to understand them.  I send them metta in the hope that a significant number of them will return to the spirit of reasonable compromise and the path of moderation and compassion.

Ah, Monday!

The skies are almost clear this morning... I imagine that within an hour or so we shall have sunlight--an unusual event for this time of day, this year. It has been an extraordinarily gloomy and cold summer, for Southern California. Yesterday, I set out at ten to fetch Ellie from the sangha--I had decided, exceptionally, to sit at home instead of with the group--and the exterior temperature gauge in the Prius read 59 degrees. Which suggests that, at six, say, it could not have been more than mid-fifties--a winter norm for us. Amazing! And much of the Midwest and East Coast swelters.

Something is happening and the worst of it is, we don't know what it is, do we, Mr. Jones? My friend Gary sent me this link to a recent presidential order from the White House concerning the protection of our great lakes and oceans. Lefties notwithstanding, this President has managed to do some good things for the country and the world. And the alternative looks worse by the day...

Oil

Along, I'm sure, with everyone else, I have been watching the seemingly unstoppable horror in the gulf, these past fifty days. As always, I also watch the (understandably) emotional finger-pointing with some dubiousness--in particular the heapings of criticism laid by the pundits on Obama. It took David Brooks, I think, a conservative columnist, to point out that we elected a thoughtful, steady-handed, rational, solution-oriented guy, so why are we now expecting him to swagger about and shoot from the hip like his predecessor? Maureen Dowd, on the other hand, condemned him for failing to be our "Daddy" when we needed one. And it does seem that we behave, collectively, like a bunch of children, who expect the world to be fashioned according to our wants and needs, and stamp our feet and pout when things don't turn out that way.

Here's the best thing I've read on the subject of the oil spill. Written by Mark Morford of the San Francisco Chronicle, it acknowledges the dark side of this whole event: our common complicity in the demand for oil. We have known for at least forty years that this dependency was a threat to our well-being and to the natural environment, but have done nothing to address it. Indeed, the reverse, our demand has only increased, our addiction deepened. It has clearly not been a national priority to even assure the safety of the drilling operations that service that addiction, particularly those offshore. No, we Americans have embraced the notion that we deserve cheap gasoline, unlike the citizens of the vast majority of nations who pay through the nose for it. Our aversion to paying our fair share in the world has meant that no politician in his or her right mind would speak out for the obvious--a gasoline tax. It should have happened decades ago. Oh, and sensible government regulation, which might have inconvenienced our corporate sponsors... Socialism!

Morford also points to the opportunity we are being offered by this disaster: to finally recognize our responsibility and come to our senses. We could learn to recognize that we depend on these fossil fuels at a potentially devastating cost to our environment and our well-being as a nation, and that we need to agree on immediate action to come out of denial and get ourselves into rehab--the 12-step program offers a workable model, depending as it does on personal honesty and responsibility, and the support of community; to conserve, protect, and assure the safe recovery of the fossil fuels that remain to us; and most importantly to devote our national energies, resources and innovative skills to the development of alternative sources of energy.

Sounds simple and obvious. Those of us on the left look to the man we elected as President for leadership, but we tend to forget that leadership is impracticable without followership. We are in extreme danger of leaving him up the flagpole on which we have hoisted him, flapping helplessly in every unfriendly gust that comes along. No one, it seems, is prepared to sacrifice an iota of personal well-being--or personal opinion--for what is so clearly the common good. Absurdly, we conspire against our own best interests. So now, with the results of our short-sightedness in plain view to all, will we persist in exculpating ourselves and assigning our responsibility elsewhere? Or will we be able to look into the mirror of this murky mass of filth that pollutes the Gulf and see the reflection of the dark side of ourselves?

As American...

... as apple pie?

Ellie and I watched the Obama interview on Sixty Minutes on Sunday evening with enormous pleasure. What a thrill to have as a President-elect a man who speaks in whole sentences on every issue put before him, who has clear and well-enunciated thoughts, a serviceable and readily accessible grasp of history—and a sense of humor to boot. What a delight to have as a prospective First Lady (I’ve always kind of disliked that title) a woman who is so evidently smart and well-informed, dedicated to her family, and supportive of the man who will be President. It seems like a long time we have waited for such people in our White House. Apple pie, at last!

Did I mention last week about being asked if I was “proud to be an American”? I answered, No, out of principle, because I have seen in my time on Earth what the nationalistic spirit can lead to, and because I believe with Samuel Johnson that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” But just as I can be proud of something I have done rather than of who I am, I can be proud of what America has achieved; and in this instance it has achieved something truly praiseworthy and remarkable.

Alas, not everything American is apple pie. I also watched, later in the evening, a couple of episodes of the Ken Burns-produced documentary, The West, and was confronted with the dark side of the American experience in the wanton slaughter of the buffalo and the government-sponsored decimation of the Native American tribes with a litany of broken treaties, betrayals, and promises unkept—all in the spirit of expansionism and the accumulation of excessive wealth. I could not help but wonder, by the end, whether I was not witnessing some unsavory part of the American character that persists to this day: is it not the same greed that caused the senseless mass killing of animals for the sake of the money their dead bodies represent, and the senseless pursuit of superfluous wealth in the financial world today? Am I being unkind? Unpatriotic? Am I speaking of basic human characteristics, not peculiarly American ones? But then I think of the hapless Indians, who had lived on their lands for centuries, taking from it only what they needed for survival…

I know that I risk seeming down on America, but it’s one of my fundamental and recurring arguments that we must know who we are, as a people, if we are to move forward into a viable future for ourselves and those with whom we share the planet. We have, to put it bluntly, a tendency to indulge rather easily in self-congratulation about ourselves and our country, and to skip the important critical part which leads to the kind of clarity we need if we are to make our contribution to the world. If we fail to acknowledge the truth of our materialism, our insatiable desire for MORE, our willingness to promote our own interests above those of our neighbors, our too easily-aroused instinct to resolve delicate issues with aggression, our role as the world's 900-pound gorilla will be undiminished and I fear for the outcome...

But then, of course, we elect an Obama, which leads me to hope that, this time, we have truly listened to our better angels. Good for us!

OBAMA!

Well, he did it! We did it. They did, Obama's extraordinary campaign staff and millions of those who, like my daughter, were inspired to work their hearts out to assure that stunning victory last night. Our neighborhood down here in Laguna Beach, in the heart of conservative Orange County, California, exploded at eight o'clock when the election was called by the chattering media. The sight of the Obama family on stage at the time of the acceptance speech was stirring beyond words. Most moving, perhaps, was the face of Jesse Jackson, tears streaming down, recalling all those years it took to make this happen.

The media commentary this morning--as did the gracious Bush speech outside the White House--made story of Obama's victory to be about race, extolling the fact that a black American could win the presidency and the proof it offered that America is the place of unlimited opportunity. While this is true, I think the historical shift if greater and more important than this interpretation allows. The paradigm shift has more to do with the evidence it offers of a deep cultural tectonic event; it's a repudiation of that mean side of the American character that has been manifest these past thirty years and more, the smallness that has promoted the whole me-first mentality that was reflected first, in my opinion, in the so-called tax revolt of the 1970s. It's a repudiation of Ronald Reagan as much as George W. Bush, of the trickle-down theory of economics that made a travesty of the American notion of fairness and opportunity. It's a repudiation of the politics of division that has pitted Republican against Democrat, right against left, liberal against conservative. It's Barack Obama's appeal that he has insisted throughout on transcending these divisions.

The much-touted change is only partly about these things. But the relief that was tangible in the air last night was not just an American relief. You could almost feel the entire world taking a new breath. Obama's election is also about the realization that America must now take its place again in the community of nations, and that the world at large has much at stake in America's change of heart. I have heard it said that voting for the American President should not be restricted to Americans, since the choice affects the lives of people everywhere. There's truth to that. The world has become so small, so "flat"--to use NYTimes columnist Tom Friedman's term, that we can no longer hope to survive as a species if we cling to our old notion of a collection of competitive nation states. As a man whose very humanity is a complex blend of national and racial identity, Obama has the look of a person who transcends the old categories we must now discard.

I am convinced that the new President will make good on his promise to reach across the ideological divides. I hope that he will find a source of support in the new "old McCain" who made a reappearance last night in his gracious concession speech--a man of generosity and courage and dedication. I fully expect to see and hear more from him. I trust that the same is NOT true of the biggest mistake he made in the course of his campaign, the mistake that undermined the trust he had worked so hard to build in the American electorate. I refer, of course, to the Governor of Alaska, whose hysterical and pusillanimous campaign rhetoric did so much to discredit the ideology for which she stood.

Needless to say, we in this household are overjoyed to enjoy the prospect of a President Obama, and are prepared to do what we many need to do and make the sacrifices we may be called on to make in order to out this country back on track to fulfill its promise to itself and to the world.

Presidents

It's odd, isn't it, how things fall together? Last week, you may recall, it was birds. This week, it's presidents--and not just poor W., the unfortunate lamest of lame ducks, whose on-screen portrayal we watched a couple of days ago at our local theater and about whom I wrote only yesterday. And not just the two men vying, now finally in the last week of the campaign, for the job the current incumbent will soon thankfully vacate. No, it was also that we played, last night, our recording of the last two segments of the documentary portrait of LBJ on American Experience--the story of a great man destroyed by his fatal refusal to recognize the futility of his war in Vietnam. I was much moved--to tears, actually--at the end of the Johnson documentary, by the photographic record of a broken man, old at 64, with a long, silver mane of hair and a face deeply scored by the pain he made no secret of feeling about the ignominious end to what should have been a great presidency.

The single, inevitable parallel between Bush and Johnson is striking: both mired in unwinnable wars, each with a presidency and a legacy at stake, they are marked forever by the blood of American soldiers. I realized that I had entertained much the same thoughts and feelings about both of them, at one time and another. Back in the 1960s, I shared the disdain for Johnson that was commonly felt by those of us who opposed not only the war, but his conduct of it. In the 2000s, I have had that same feeling for Bush. I have been asking myself, since watching the documentary, whether I might be shedding tears for the memory of Bush many years from now (of course, I were still to be around to shed them!) as I did for Johnson's last night?

Perhaps. I'm honestly not sure. The difference, as I see it, is the difference between tragedy and pathos. The Bush story is one of pathos largely because of the protagonist's character: I see him--forgive the judgment--as a small man, petty, scrappy, belligerent, self-assured, unquestioning, self-congratulatory in his arrogance, incapable of recognizing or regretting his own errors of judgment. His actions have been preremptory, ill-considered, reactive rather than proactive. He has proved the hapless victim of circumstance, a period of history much bigger than himself. I feel sorry for him, but without admiration for that more-than-human struggle with destiny that characterizes the tragic hero.

If I see Johnson differently, it may well be because of the great conflict that befell him in the course of his presidency. Starting out as an unpromising and manipulative Texas politician who would sell his grandmother's soul for a vote, he grew after Dallas into a President who struggled to achieve great things: his record on civil rights and the Great Society, his introduction of Medicare and his declaration of the war on the (still unresolved) war on poverty--these are the solid foundation of his greatness. He may have achieved them through his old manipulative devices, but achieve them he did, and to the lasting benefit of this powerful nation. How dreadful, then, in the light of this dedication to the betterment of his country, was that fatal flaw that attached him to the Vietnam war, and to the obsession with coming out victorious in a fight that was lost before it started.

This, I would argue, was a truly tragic conflict in the heart and soul of a powerful man, upon whose fate the fate of millions of others rested. Watching the documentary evidence of his downfall, it's impossible not to see in his eyes, his face, his bearing, the slow erosion of a deeply conflicted human soul. Am I simply biased in failing to see the same in Bush? In Bush, I see a man who certainly has aged in the course of his presidency. In his face and bearing these days, I see a man who is tired beyond endurance, I see a man who has surrendered without being able to acknowledge the part he has played in his own downfall and who continues to hold others accountable for the results of his actions.

Am I twisting history by putting things in this literary light? Perhaps. Looking now at Barack Obama and John McCain, I see the same difference between smallness and potential greatness, the same small-mindedness that appeals to those concerned first and foremost with their own well-being and the greater vision that proposes the struggle for a better world for everyone. I know who I think would make the better president. I hope that, if elected, he will prove to share Johnson's passionate embrace of humanity--and that he will not be similarly hobbled by a futile war. My worst worry about Obama is his oft-stated commitment to an increased military presence in Afghanistan: let it not become for him what Vietnam became for Lyndon B. Johnson.

Funny McCain, Funny Obama

It was heart-warming to be reminded of the old John McCain at yesterday's Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. He was funny, charming, effusive, self-deprecating, and warmly generous to his opponent. After watching his hilarious performance, I had a moment of anxiety for Barack Obama, who was to follow McCain at the podium. Would he be able to relax his seriousness and self-discipline for long enough to be just funny? Would he risk losing political points for failing to come up to the standard McCain had set?

I need not have worried. Obama proved to be an entertaining stand-up comedian. He was relaxed, comfortable, ready to poke fun at his own overblown messianic image. His material was first rate, his timing and delivery flawless. He had Ellie and me in those proverbial stitches as we watched. And he seemed to be thoroughly enjoying himself. What a wonderful release from the nastiness of the campaign. It was a pleasure to watch both of these men laughing out loud and with unfeigned delight, for a change, at each other's barbs.


This was one debate where it didn't matter who came out on top--and where both sides won.

(On the other hand... if you pause for long enough to analyze the press photograph above, does it not offer a distressingly regressive image of our current political and social institutions? I'm looking at the picture--ahem, excuse the pointed-headed aside--"deconstructively," with three solid rows of participants, all powerful, all wealthy--and all male!--all reveling in their own importance, chuckling comfortably in the knowledge of their own position of security. This image of unassailable temporal power protects, at its core, the medievally red-robed cardinal, the very symbol of--also male!--spiritual power. In all, a perfect and deeply disturbing evocation of the power base of Western civilization. I'm just happy to see that single, stand-out black face edging in on the company. While Hillary, we know from other pictures and television footage, is off somewhere at the periphery. The picture speaks more eloquently than words.)

Sen. McCop-Out & Gov. Bubblewrap

The cynicism is breathtaking--all the more so for the fact that millions of McCain supporters will praise his wisdom, judgment, and patriotism for offering to sacrifice the great benefits of his first debate with Obama and move it from tomorrow to... October 2, the scheduled date for the Biden-Palin debate, Which would in turn, I can only suppose, be "postponed"?

Convenient?

Here's the question: are we--the electorate and the media who are supposed to keep us informed--going to quietly submit to the McCain's campaign plan to hide the nominee for Vice President of our country from sight and protect her from every legitimate question until after it's too late? So far, they seem to have gotten away with it. The grumblings from press and public have gone ignored or treated with scorn. Those who dare to question Palin's qualifications are brushed off as sexists or bullies--or both. And now the plan's afoot--who can doubt it?--to insulate her even from the scheduled vice-presidential debate.

This is not only about Palin and her qualifications. More importantly, this is about McCain and his judgment. Do we want, in the Oval Office, another man who makes gut-level decisions on important issues and, when pushed, leaps into risks that turn out to be disasters? I say no.

I'm sure that you, as have I, have been recipients of dozens of panicked online forwards begging you to vote on that PBS poll that asks if Sarah Palin is qualified to be Vice President. It seems that right-wing zealots have organized a campaign to activate the Republican "base" to mail in "yes" answers in the attempt to force the issue and prove, in what they surely see as a liberally biased medium, that their candidate is the popular choice.

The first time this thing reached me, I was seduced by the alarm, and went online to vote. The more forwards I received, however, the more it seemed to me that the best response would not have been to participate in the melee, but to ignore it. The poll has become a meaningless morass of unnecessary alarm, and its results are predictably as meaningless as the process. I can't believe, at this juncture, that PBS will want to put out the results without some caveat as to the rampant abuse of their poll on both sides of political spectrum.

There seems to be some small effort in the media to hold Palin's feet to the fire, as well they should be. No one should be given a free pass into the office that leads directly into the Oval Office should accident or illness befall the incumbent. I read today in the New York Times that even Campbell Brown of CNN--not a hotbed of radical journalism--was expressing outrage: "I call upon the McCain campaign," she said, "to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower who will wilt at any moment... For me, it's about accountability." And yes, writes the NYT, "she does think that the McCain campaign is being sexist about Ms. Palin. 'The McCain campaign says that if she were a man, the media would not be treating her this way. So it's fair for me to ask, If she were a man, would they be coddling her this way?'"

It's clear that the McCain campaign wants things both ways, and is thus far successful in getting it. The Obama people are soft-pedaling their approach to Palin, and for good reason: they'll get slapped with the sexist prejudice label as soon as they open their mouths, and that won't help their cause. So it's up to the media to demand accountability on our behalf, and for us to demand no less from our media. Let's be sure we're up to the task.

A Dukakis Moment; and Who's the Boss?

A Dukakis moment for McCain? While Barack Obama was striding around the Middle East sounding very sane and looking very presidential--and being driven by the King of Jordan himself to his O-Force One jet--Republican hopeful Senator John McCain was getting his own joyride aboard a dinky golf cart, piloted by the aging (sorry, senioring) former President Bush (the nicer one.) I couldn't help but think of the image that so diminished then-presidential hopeful Dukakis, absurdly helmeted as he played solider on that tank. McCain, with a toothy grin that never fails to strike an off-key note, also managed to look more than a little absurd, old-boyish, golf-y, superannuated, out of touch.

And talk about whiners! The best McCain and his campaign have been able to come up with in the face of the wild Obama success in the Middle East is that whiny one-liner, "he'd rather lose a war than an election." Ouch! The media, of course, can hardly wait for the Obama gaffe. They had to settle, yesterday, for his slip in saying that "Israel is Israel's best friend"--or words to that effect. Intending, of course, to say that the United States was Israel's good friend. To call the slip a gaffe is to stretch the meaning of that word. (It did give me pause to wonder, though, how my own reaction might have been different had McCain made that same slip. Would I have been jeeringly condescending, rather than easily forgiving, as I am with Obama? Perhaps. I like to think not.)

It does seem to me that Obama is maintaining remarkable equanimity in that hornet's nest. From what I can gather from news reports--and I freely admit that they are hardly to be trusted--those he meets at the very least feel listened to. What he had to say about his differences with Gen. Petraeus, greatly touted by the press, seems entirely right to me. Who IS the boss? The abject deference to this general or any other is dismaying. Should he be determining our national priorities? I think not. That he has been allowed to do so by the current occupant of the White House is an abdication of responsibility. That McCain would continue to defer to him is sufficient indication that this Republican would be equally derelict in that responsibility.

Equanimity. A good Buddhist aspiration, and one that Obama rather successfully embodies. How very different from what we have experienced in politics for the last nearly eight years. How much what is needed in the face of our current challenges. As the late John Lennon famously wrote, and as TaraDharma sagely concluded in her post yesterday: "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." To which I'd add, "I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will be as one."