Democrats: Democracy? Not So Much

Tags

99%, America, American, American politics, Antonio Villaraigosa, barack obama, boo, booing, boos, delegates, democrat, Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, Democratic Party platform, democrats, dissent, diversity, DNC, Election, election 2012, enthusiasm, enthusiasm gap, favorablitily, fox news, freedom, god, gods, Governor Romney, inclusion, israel, Jerusalem, labels, liberty, mitt romney, movement, nancy pelosi, obama, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, Palestine, pandering, party platform, pelosi, politics, polls, president obama, progress, progressive, Progressives, relatablility, religion, republican, Republican National Convention, republicans, rights, RNC, romney, separation of church and state, Strickland, Tea Party, Ted Strickland, Villaraigosa, voice vote, voter ID, voter ID laws, voting, voting rights, woman, women, young, youth vote

In the days following last week’s Democratic National Convention, there’s been a lot of buzz about the “significant” bounce President Obama received nationally. A litany of polls point to the fact that both the president and Democrats alike have higher favorability ratings and are seen as more trustworthy and relatable on key issues to voters—as compared to Mitt Romney and Republicans. Pollsters and pundits like to attribute this bounce to the “nearly flawless” Convention the Democrats put on. For all the talk of the “enthusiasm gap” among Democrats leading up to the Convention, it seemed the Republicans–with their bland speakers, non-detail specific plans, and most searing, visually, the lackluster crowd—comprised the party with the “enthusiasm gap”. The contrasts between the rousing call to action speeches, actual facts (which former present and all-around charmer Bill Clinton called “arithmetic”), and the diverse and engaged crowd, as compared to the Republican National Convention, couldn’t be starker.

Except that the Democratic National Convention wasn’t nearly flawless. Venue changes and speech scheduling issues aside, the “God and Jerusalem” issue of last Wednesday night is one that I would call a major flaw. Of course Democrats want to brush over it. One need only watch an obviously annoyed Nancy Pelosi repeatedly explain “it’s over” when asked about the event to know Democrats don’t want to talk about it. I bring this up not to taint the Democrats or the Convention. I want nothing more than for Barack Obama to beat Mitt Romney on November 6^th. This event should not be swept under the rug, though. I want to feel proud of my party and I don’t want to think that it stands for fundamental unfairness and oligarchy, which is the conclusion I’ve drawn from the votes I saw and the (sham) presentation at the Convention regarding proposed changes to the platform. Besides the fact that I fundamentally disagree with the idea of including mentions of God in an American political party platform and I think the idea of declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel is an abhorrent display of pandering at best and possible racism at worst, the fact that DNC organizers completely ignored the will of the people is irrefutably shameful and unacceptable. We should all be up in arms about the fact that this can happen in the United States—and on TV, no less!

Some background first:

The original Democratic Party platform contained no mention of the word “God”, and it did not include the idea that Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel. There were some murmurs about the alleged God snubbing part. I was very excited about this part at the time. I felt like, perhaps, real progress had been made. Perhaps the self-professed “party of inclusion” had finally made an effort to include atheists like me. After all, Obama was the first president to mention “non-believers” in his Inaugural Address. That freezing January day on the National Mall, I was there, and I felt hope. For the first time, I really felt included. This was not to be, however. It was reported that President Obama himself was outraged at the exclusion of God in the party platform and personally—and firmly—requested that it be included. Including the term “God” in the party platform is not just an affront to me—or to atheists. It is often argued that “God” is a generic term; unlike Jesus, it doesn’t denote any specific religion. Rather, it is argued, God is a stand in for a kind of civic religion, an American spirituality. In short, however, it is a belief in some sort of “higher power”, some sort of vague “spirituality”. Even if we were to accept this idea, there are plenty of religious people who don’t believe in the concept of one god, or even the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God referred to in speech after speech by speakers at the DNC, and certainly the one referred to in the revised platform. Sure, this concept of a monotheistic God more or less covers the big three: Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The concept of this specific God does, however, leave atheists, agnostics, secularists, polytheists, and others, out in the cold.

The original Democratic Party platform also did not contain the explicit statement of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. (more on that in a minute)

At the opening of the Convention on Day 2 (or Wednesday, September 5^th), some top Democrats seemed to have changed their minds about the content of their party’s platform. Perhaps they bowed to pressure (especially by Fox News, who, I’m sure, sought to discredit Democrats in any way they could), or they suddenly became alerted to their now-unacceptable omissions. Whatever the case, a voice vote was held. Former governor of Ohio and head of the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, Ted Strickland, was introduced on stage by the Democratic National Committee Chairman (and current governor of Los Angeles) Antonio Villaraigosa. After Strickland talked about how he was an ordained minister and God’s very important to him and to the “American narrative” and how Jerusalem is, of course, the capital of Israel (though he didn’t mention anything about Israelis, Palestinians, or any reason that such a statement should be so important), Villaraigosa put the platform changes up to a vote from those in the audience. After the first vote, the “nays” seemed equal to the “yeas”. Villaraigosa tried again. The same thing happened, this time with the “nays” being shouted even louder. After hesitation and momentary panic—and after a woman on the side of the stage who we can only assume was another Party official said, “I think we’re just gonna have to let them do what they wanna do”—Villaraigosa tried one last time—with (surprise, surprise!) the same result. He then decided that, in his opinion, “two-thirds of the crowd voted in the affirmative”, and the changes were adopted. After this, very audible booing occurred from the audience. This, of course, was ignored, and what was done was done. Music was played in an attempt to drown out the prolonged booing from the audience, and the next speaker was rushed out in an effort to make a seamless transition into the rest of the Convention.

What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the United States? Many things, each party would have you believe, chief among them, each party’s differing views on how to move the country forward. This basically amounts to ideological differences in the role, scope, and aims of the federal government, led by either the overwhelming guiding principle of self reliance (Republicans) or the communitarian “we’re stronger together and all help one another” spirit of cooperation (Democrats). But, of course, we are all Americans, and each party will say that we are all united by basic American principles. These principles include that nebulous, but all important concept of “freedom” and that we are united by the shared belief and understanding of inalienable truths–one of those being the near sycophantic undying support for Israel. And, oh, by the way, if you even dare question Israel’s motives or say one critical word about Romney BFF “Bibi” Netanyahu, then you are anti-semitic (never mind the fact that the Semites include Palestinians as well as the Jews of the region), and are dishonoring the victims of the Holocaust. You will be cast out into the political hinterlands like one Jimmy Carter, never mind the fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, but so did another US president, Barack Obama. So many similarities! No wonder our poor president felt such pressure to cave. The Republicans might try to weaken him. …Except that Republicans have already questioned Obama’s commitment to Israel (in detestable terms), and will continue to do so. The Romney campaign has blatantly told the public it’s not above lying (the famous phrase by Romney’s campaign that it “will not be beholden to fact checkers”), and campaign operatives know that vitriolic rhetoric plays well with racist, ignorant members of the Republican base.

This is part of what I wrote immediately after the incident at the Convention last Wednesday:

Obama wanted control of the message. Perhaps this will all blow over in the next few days, overcome by a tsunami of enthusiasm following the president’s acceptance speech tonight. I’m sure the Obama campaign staff and the DNC inner circle are betting on the fact that this unfortunate incident will be forgotten as Democrats indulge in the inspiring, empowering speeches of Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Julian Castro, Ted Strickland…except that Ted Strickland was the person who came out on stage, claiming his history as an ordained Methodist minister and pressing for changes to the Democratic platform. He is the face that stared at the panicked Antonio Villaraigosa as Villaraigosa asked the DNC delegation three times if it would accept the changes to the platform. When he confirmed changes, boos rang out. The admiration and affinity I had acquired for Ted Strickland, after hearing his fantastic speech the night before, had evaporated in less than 24 hours. It was replaced by feelings of anger and betrayal. I wonder if this is what Tea Partiers feel like when they claim tyranny of the government. I waited to write this until I had time to let events settle in, and I can’t see it as anything but tyranny. I know I sound hyperbolic, but how else would these actions be explained?

Religion should be separate from politics, and the United States should not be as involved in Israeli policy. What happened to “freedom” (of thought, dissent, and self determination)?

Everyone is entitled to his or her views. THAT is precisely the point I’m trying to make. The part about God and the part about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel were not originally in the Democratic platform. While I believe these things should have no place in the platform, it’s not up to me–or Strickland or Villaraigosa or Obama–hence, the vote.

These people, who seemed to amass more than one-third of the audience so much so that Villaraigosa asked three times, freaked out, and rammed it through, amidst very audible boos, had a right to be heard, and to be taken seriously. People are right to feel outraged and betrayed.

It is a party convention. The platform must be affirmed and adopted by those delegates in attendance. In this case, a two-thirds majority was necessary, and that number didn’t seem to approve of these proposals being added.

The adoption of the changes to the platform was pre-scripted and passed despite a great amount of obvious objection. Those who take issue with the platform changes, and the way in which they were adopted have no recourse for complaint. These people, the delegates, are representatives of American citizens, and are our frontline of so-called democracy. They are the representatives of our “representative republic”. If their voices are silenced or ignored, what other conclusion is there to draw than the fact that the people don’t matter to the party, that the many at the bottom matter little to those at the top? The voice of the people was overridden. It never mattered in the first place.

This is all the more ironic since the Democratic Party points to the undemocratic practices of its counterpart the Republican Party in silencing people by making it increasingly difficult for them to vote. For all of the talk of people-powered change and the progressivism of the Democratic Party during the convention, when the extension of such ideals was exercised, it meant nothing.

I’m more than disappointed. I’m angry, and I feel disillusioned and betrayed. I feel stung by a party that wants my vote, by a party that will appeal to me as a woman, as a young person, as a 99 percenter, as any number of labels, but that takes away from me the definition of the most fundamental identity of all—that of an American.

An Uncivil Society: Twitter, Tom Morello, and Terrorism

Tags

abortion, America, American, Assange, bigotry, bipartisanship, campaign strategy, campaigns, Castle, character, china, civil, civility, climate change, common ground, commuication, congress, conservative, courtesy, culture, democrats, deregulation, Dick Lugar, Election, elections, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, extradition, feminism, gay rights, government, hate, hunger, huntsman, immigrants, incivility, inequality, israel, jon huntsman, Julian Assange, labor, law, laws, left, liberal, Lugar, Mike Castle, Molotov cocktails, Morello, other, Path to Prosperity, paul ryan, Paul Ryan's budget, political parties, politics, pollutants, pollution, poverty, primaries, primary, progress, progressive, protest, protests, rage, Rage Against the Machine, rape, rape culture, regulation, republicans, respect, rhetoric, right, Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone magazine, Ryan, sexism, Tea Party, terrorism, Tom Morello, tweets, twitter, uncivil, united states, United States of America, US Chamber of Commerce, violence, vitriol, Wikileaks, women

Decrying incivility in government is about as uncommon as a politician wearing a flag pin.  Everyone says there should be a return to civility, and many a politician has called for it at one point or another during his or her campaign.  The truth is that common courtesy and a basic respect for those with whom one disagrees are too often viewed as quaint relics.  These sentiments are often seen as losing strategies and can even be seen as traitorous since they might not do enough to galvanize one’s particular base.  I maintain that calling the hate and bigotry on the right end of the political spectrum as bad as the vitriol spewed from the left a false equivalency, but there is plenty of blame to go around. 

I’m not saying that everyone who subscribes to a certain political party or who promotes specific stances has an utter disregard for those with whom he or she disagrees.  As is the case with most things, unfortunately, it’s those who scream the loudest, say the nastiest things, and occupy the greatest attention (due to the constant media spotlight), who become our icons and our political rock stars.  Anyone who’s ever been in an elementary school class with those few kids whose bad behavior resulted in punishment for the whole class knows the drill.  Perhaps it’s sociology: as voyeurs and voracious consumers of entertainment as well as the need to feel a sense of belonging or group identity in an increasingly alienated world, we seek out these atrocious displays of animosity.  As people tear each other down, we cheer from the stands.  Again, not everyone delights in this spectacle, and not all the time.  Rome had its circuses, its great gladiatorial spectacles, but it also had its philosophers—and its statesmen.

It is these very statesmen (statespeople, really)—who take their positions seriously, and make the effort to solve problems and improve the human condition—who are often the ones ignored.  Worse, they are punished for their willingness to compromise, to assess from all angles, to stray from the flock.  Critical thinking is secondary to claiming and maintaining power, and this maintenance of power (as well as the attempts to attain it) is too often achieved by obliterating and dehumanizing the opposition.  Those in Congress who buck the trend—the Dick Lugars, the Mike Castles—are swiftly replaced as their courtesy and reaches “across the aisle” mark them as liabilities.  That a serious and accomplished presidential candidate such as Jon Huntsman was written off as soon as he announced his primary campaign is another testament to this climate.  When urged to slam his opponents with acerbic insults, Huntsman calmly shook his head and chose substance over superficiality.  The media soon got bored of his nuanced assessment of trade policy with China and his assertions that climate change is indeed real—and, gasp!, a result of human pollution and industry.

The primary system is also devised in such a way that skill or qualifications do not necessarily determine which candidate advances; rather, the one who can trip the rest of the competitors enough to come out ahead then faces his or her opponents, who have also, probably, clawed and bitten their way to the general election by emerging the most ideologically pure, the most willing to denigrate their primary opponents, and, are often the most monied people in their races.  Since the two major parties are so dominant in the American system—from local politics all the way up to the national stage—polarization is unsurprisingly prevalent.  The Tea Party has undoubtedly made Congressional polarization worse. 

This all serves as a backdrop to the kind of thing that hits closer to home.  As much as I would like everyone I encounter to be as politically engaged as I am, I realize that most people are not.  Most people don’t know about the “Oh, snap!” moments that occur daily in the hallowed halls of Congress, conveniently couched between the decorous language of “My distinguished colleague from such and such state…”, and how these insults diminish debate and waste incredible amounts of time.  Most people did not watch every Republican primary debate.  Most people did not even know who Paul Ryan was before last Saturday.  This level of ignorance is disheartening, but it’s not the subject of this blog post.  The point is that most people will interact with others who employ the same lack of civility.  They will also read what their idols write in magazines.  They may very well incorporate these ideas into their everyday lives and begin to hate the “other”—the enemy—among them. This, unlike conservative monetary policy, has a measurable trickle down effect.

These are the people I want to focus on.  The examples I provide are self-described progressives, proving that, unlike their limited conceptions that conservatives are the only purveyors of bigoted rhetoric, they, too, spread ignorance, disinformation and misinformation, and even incite violence toward those they malign. 

Let’s start with Exhibit A.  I’d like to begin with a woman on Twitter.  This woman was trying to make a point about “rape culture” and the fact that consent can be revoked by a woman even in the middle of sex.  Basically, even if the woman has said yes to the man, she can tell him to stop at any time (even while his penis is in her vagina), and if he doesn’t stop, the ensuing action is considered rape.  No argument from me here.  It was her subsequent tweets, however, which began to eclipse her initial point.  Her description of rape, which went a bit further, was tweeted within the context of her assessment of the Julian Assange extradition case.  I will not get into what may or may not have happened, and the fact that there are other political ramifications, whether Assange did or did not rape two women in Sweden.  Whether you’re an ardent Assange supporter or not—or you fall somewhere in the middle—you would likely be totally turned off to this woman’s points about rape and domination of women after reading her Twitter feed. 

I fancy myself a feminist, and I cringe when I see women malign the entire male gender and when they resort to ad hominem attacks and outright lies and generalizations about anyone who doesn’t agree with them.  Another note: dressing provocatively does not make you a traitor to women or a slut, and cringing when a girl starts talking about “eating pussy” in mixed company does not make you homophobic.  I can almost guarantee that if a male said the same thing, the female wouldn’t think twice about calling him disgusting and a chauvinist.  Both of the previous examples have occurred in my life, and I stand by the fact that I do not hold back women everywhere by wearing what I want, and not wanting to hear about anyone eating anyone out, thank you very much. 

Back to Twitter woman, though.  This woman’s succinct and important point was drowned out by an hours-long screed against pretty much anyone who dared debate her.  At a point, she decided she didn’t want to answer anyone anymore because she was bored and didn’t want to put the time in, and reasoned that she didn’t owe anyone anything.  She wrote things about groups of people she’d never even met, and passed them off as truth.  She had a point to make, and damn anyone who got in her way.  Not only is this uncivil and immature; it drowns out the point you’re trying to make and upsets anyone who might’ve been stirred by your first point.  The lesson: think for more than two seconds, and don’t be an asshole.  Two wrongs don’t make a right, and one asshole turn does not deserve another—not if you actually want to accomplish anything in the way of progress.

One more side note: Inevitably, people claim freedom of speech.  I don’t deny the validity of this claim.  People are free to say and write nearly anything they want.  My point is that a lot of these things are ultimately really bad for society.  They contribute to the dumbing down of society and the squinty-eyed suspicion of anyone who is remotely different than you.  Much is made of the wrongness of school-age bullying, but bullying occurs in all levels of society, and is actually encouraged in many arenas.

The next example I include is Tom Morello, the singer for Rage Against the Machine.  He penned an op-ed piece in Rolling Stone in response to the revelation that newly-minted Vice Presidential candidate and fiscal and social conservative extraordinaire Paul Ryan has claimed Rage Against the Machine is his favorite band.  The fact that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine is not news to everyone, but Tom Morello is apparently just now hearing about it, and he’s not happy. 

Ok, the fact that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine is pretty paradoxical, and actually really funny.  It’s the kind of tidbit that gives me hope for the world, the kind of quirk that puts a smile on my face and makes me think that despite our differences, maybe we really can find common ground and appreciate each other’s artistic, stylistic, or intellectual merits, even if we don’t agree with the ideology or the message behind  them.  For instance, some of my favorite bands are considered Christian rock bands, and just because sometimes they explicitly sing about Jesus doesn’t mean I don’t like them.  They also haven’t succeeded in turning me Christian or religious or conservative.  I know of other people who listen to Bad Religion, another one of my favorite bands, who, conversely, are not at all in line with their strong atheist and progressive political themes, but who still enjoy listening. 

Anyway, Tom Morello writes about the fact that, obviously, Paul Ryan doesn’t get his band’s message.  He claims that “Paul Ryan is the embodiment of the type of person our music rages against”.  As if this isn’t enough, Morello goes on to say that Ryan must have a lot of pent up rage. 

He writes: “Don’t mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta “rage” in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment.  Basically the only thing he’s not raging against is the privileged elite he’s groveling in front of for campaign contributions.” 

Witty?  Not so much.  Morello’s trying to make a point, obviously.  It’s lost here, though.  Morello had an opportunity to spread a real message at a time when a lot of people were tuned in.  His article went viral and was read by millions on Twitter within hours of his publishing it.  If anything, he should probably thank Ryan for the free PR.  The rest of the article’s tone is just as scathing and perhaps even pettier.  When Morello calls Ryan an “extreme fringe right wing nut job”, he’s not doing himself any favors.  The side he’d like to convince is turned off completely.  Maybe he’s preaching to the choir, but he owes his audience more than that.  He just sounds stupid and petulant. 

Yes, Ryan does promote the view that abortions are not ok even if a woman is raped.  His legislation does advance policies that directly hit the poor and the hungry and disproportionately affect minorities.  Yes, he is in favor of deregulation and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2009, in which he declares that carbon monoxide is not a pollutant or a greenhouse gas.  He would dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency.  The list goes on.  There is no shortage of extreme stances to choose from, and Morello would do more to call Ryan out on the specifics with which he disagrees.  Instead, Morello comes across as an embarrassing caricature of “the angry, irrational leftist”, eschewing any class or tact.  I agree with most of Morello’s basic views, and I end up not liking him based on what he wrote.  He loses credibility in my book because I think, ew, how downright mean and nasty and unbecoming.

The article can be found here:  http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816#ixzz23qZLNdUf

Incivility abounds.  And, as I said, it trickles down.  I knew people in college who were all for protesting what they saw as injustice, exploitation of labor, and institutionalized inequality.  So far, so good.  Their self-professed desire for anarchy was not very realistic, but freedom of assembly and political freedom are protected in the United States.  Peaceful protest has helped bring about great change in American history.  Several of the aforementioned people, however, advocated the use of Molotov cocktails in their protests, and even if they never had the opportunity to throw one themselves, gleefully cheered on those who did.  I know people who hate other groups so much that they see a necessity in terrorism.  It’s the whole “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” adage. 

Yes, people are oppressed, but those “fighting for freedom” are killing people.  Not only is this “by any means necessary” ethic morally wrong, but it undercuts efforts for real change.  I guess people are desperate or they don’t think things through enough.  You hate the US Chamber of Commerce, you hate Israel (I’m not even going to get into the fact that hating every citizen of a country is beyond reasoning), you hate those who disagree with you politically, and those who hold you back.  Fine.  You don’t riot and throw homemade bombs at people and shoot them and celebrate suicide bombers.

You don’t dehumanize your opposition to the point that these things seem ok.  You don’t listen to those who do to the point that you become desensitized, that you justify horrific actions to yourself as understandable or necessary.  These things are not ok.

I don’t like fear mongering, either.  I’m not attempting to fear monger here, but yes, I am drawing a connection between incivility and alienation, between harsh words and harsh actions.  Not only is progress almost certainly doomed, but everyone suffers—and sometimes the result of prolonged and festering incivility is irreparable damage.

Invisible Intervention

Tags

#stopkony, 2012, africa, anderson cooper, arab spring, awareness, bosnia, campaign, cnn, cyber, daraa, egypt, facebook, genocide, global, hama, homs, humanitarian intervention, idlib, international, international affairs, international relations, internet, intervention, invisible children, iran, israel, john mccain, joseph kony, joseph kony 2012, kony, kosovo, Libya, massacre, mccain, middle east, military, military intervention, murder, NATO, news, politics, rwanda, senator john mccain, social media, Syria, tunisia, turkey, twitter, U.N., uganda, UN, united nations, uprising, violence, war, war zone, warfare, world

This post is going to be controversial. I give anyone who is reading this fair warning now.

I’d like to discuss the concept of humanitarian intervention in war zones around the world. I’ve mentioned my feelings on the genocide in Syria in a previous post. (Yes, I think the situation can adequately be described as genocide.) I believe humanitarian intervention in Syria in the form of military intervention is crucial at this point since the cruelty and murder of the Assad regime seems nowhere near abating. My thoughts on the Syrian situation are clear. I will elaborate further on those soon. While few people are actively speaking out on the genocide in Syria, a firestorm has erupted in the cyber world in relation to another issue: millions of people have been alerted to the cruelties visited upon Africans by the tyrant Joseph Kony, notorious for his horrific manipulation of children used in his child army. Joseph Kony is a killer and a despot, but I’m shocked that there is so much outrage about him in relation to Bashar al Assad. To be fair, these are two different scenarios. I’m seeking to illuminate the idea that people can get fired up about something via social media, and while this concept is amazing in theory (as with the dissemination of information in the Arab Spring), it also leads to the dissemination of disinformation and an inaccurate, superficial view of foreign conflict.

To begin with, let’s examine the situation in Syria. As I’ve said, I’ve described the situation before in a previous post, and if anyone is interested, he or she can look at my post “A Screaming Syria”. Senator John McCain does a very good job of describing the current state of affairs in Syria in remarks he gave to the Senate floor a few days ago, calling for multilateral military intervention with the U.S. leading. He is one of the few to do so, and in an unequivocal way, making the rounds on television news stations and publicizing his views on Twitter. His speech, which I think should be required reading for everyone can be viewed here: http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=e460be36-c488-e7de-8c38-64c3751adfce

As Senator McCain mentions in his Senate speech, the United States and NATO intervened militarily in Bosnia and Kosovo when similar situations were occurring. As he mentioned to Anderson Cooper on AC:360 (also one of the only shows to shed a consistent light on Syria), the lack of intervention in Rwanda now stands as a shameful moment in our history. It is a moment when genocide was allowed to occur. I will not get into the politics of that particular event, but even the uninitiated know it was horrific. Surprisingly, the Senator claimed that “nothing in this world is predetermined” in reference to the Obama Administration’s repeated declarations that al Assad’s demise is “inevitable”. Essentially, morality dictates that we do not sit idly by while we cross our fingers and hope that the regime falls, and like he says, even if it does, it make take “a really long time”, causing the casualty count to climb in the process.

An additional consideration that I’m surprised has not surfaced among more politicians (in particular, among Republicans) is that of long term strategic advantage for the United States after the dust settles and the power shifts in Syria. Of course, there is the very real possibility that the ideal will not come to fruition, at least not as seamlessly as we can hope, but as Senator McCain said, we don’t even have a chance if we don’t intervene—and we really can’t afford not to. Put simply, Syria has oil. If we are friendly with the new regime, and the people see us as allies, this will be an important resource for the United States. In addition, Syria and Israel are not exactly friends. This assertion may seem overly optimistic, but if the United States has greater influence in a new Syria, perhaps our country can exercise diplomatic influence in the Middle East, especially between Syria and Israel, which might have an impact on such nations as Egypt to change their attitudes toward Israel. Of course, there is the obvious benefit of challenging Iranian influence in the region. Republicans seem to hate Iran—a hatred befitting the regime, perhaps, but too often directed in a misguided way toward the Iranian people. Perhaps the American relationship with Iran could also become a more positive one as the key Iranian ally of Syria becomes an American ally. NATO would be strengthened, and the role of Turkey would be a robust one. This is also in the interest of the United States. Finally, a multilateral military intervention in Syria would aid in ushering in the new era of 21^st century international cooperation. It would prove that the intervention in Libya wasn’t just a fluke, that even if the countries of the United Nations cannot agree to act in favor the moral high ground, other institutions exist that will promote the ideals of security, stability, democracy, and human rights—that international law is not dead, and that bloodthirsty leaders desperate to cling to power cannot act with impunity.

The 20^th century was the century of decolonization. It began with the fall of empires after World War I, and ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the final decade of the century. The 21^st century has dawned with the fight for human rights for the people in many of those countries in which such rights have not been granted. We should not let the legacy of the Arab Spring falter in Syria.

Now, after that inspiring rhetoric, I want to contrast this movement with that of the #stopkony and Joseph Kony 2012 movements. For the last two days, Twitter has been inundated with trending topics referencing the warlord Joseph Kony. This movement has spread to Facebook and other social media and aggregate sites. Many people have linked to a video about Joseph Kony on the YouTube page of Invisible Children, a nonprofit organization who launched the campaign against Kony. The stated aims are to find Joseph Kony somewhere in Uganda or central Africa—it’s not quite clear since no one knows where he is at the moment—and bring him to justice. This is a worthwhile aim, but the Invisible Children campaign is not necessarily the right tool to use to do so.

Invisible Children mainly raises awareness. This is fantastic, but does not solve the problem. Millions of young Americans can tweet all they want, but how many actually understand the complexities of child armies in Africa? How many have even heard of the L.R.A? And how many have done any research into Invisible Children, except to watch the half hour promotional video put out by the group? As the sites I will link to explain, Invisible Children supports another Ugandan group that also uses child soldiers, that rapes and loots, and engages in unspeakable horrors in much the same way that Kony’s groups have. Invisible Children feels that this group is the best tool to find Kony. What kind of message does this send? That evil can fight evil? An eye for an eye? This kind of military action is very dangerous, and as one of the sources explains, retaliatory action has been taken when American forces have intervened militarily, and anything involving child soldiers is “messy”. Another fear is the racial and cultural element in that many people don’t understand the plight of rural Africans. This is not to say intervention is never necessary or that Joseph Kony should not be made infamous. As I stated before, the Rwandan genocide is a classic case in which military intervention in Africa was necessary and should have been undertaken.

Sources Skeptical of Invisible Children:

http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com.nyud.net/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conserving-freedom/2012/mar/7/kony-2012-bringing-joseph-kony-justice/

Invisible Children has many questionable practices, but has been made famous by bands such as Fall Out Boy in previous years and has now spread due to social media. I think that most people who spread the message are pure of heart and many want to be part of a larger movement to feel like they are making a difference in the world. This is commendable, though, Invisible Children and the entire Kony movement may not be the best way to go about solving the problem. The lesson that should be taken from this movement is that now that people are informed, brainstorming about a better way to end the kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of children, as well as other members of African communities, can begin. Some people, it seems, just want to jump on the bandwagon and get involved in the latest trend. As one source said, sometimes doing nothing actually is better than doing something, if that something breeds more destruction.

Why is it that Syria has not garnered the same fevered attention as the Joseph Kony movement? There may be several reasons for this. There is a clear plan of action that can be taken in Syria, right now, with the aid of other countries within a reliable framework. The same cannot be said for the search for Kony in Africa. I urge humanitarian aid in Syria and a closer look at the Invisible Children-sponsored movement. Invisible Children has become very visible, while the idea of intervention in Syria has been nearly invisible.