Weed, Weddings, Wombs, Wonks, and Whackjobs

Weed, Weddings, Wombs, Wonks, and Whackjobs

Barack Obama has been reelected President of the United States, and beleaguered citizens sigh in relief (or, for some Mitt Romney supporters, in sputtering denial).  So do Canadians, who again are spared a massive fantasy influx of disgruntled Democrats, although a handful of remarkably ignorant Republicans are making the same migratory threat to our neighbors to the North.  Way to escape socialized medicine and reproductive rights, guys! 

After a couple days of reflection, I’ve isolated five rather unexpected outcomes of Election Day and speculated a bit on how they might play out. 

Weed:  The referenda to legalize ‘recreational marijuana’ in Colorado and Washington State had flown below my East Coast radar.  That they passed was at first surprising, at second intriguing (I’ve never visited Seattle . . . and am quite fond of Denver . . . is it time for first and return trips?), at third sensible (tax revenues and better use of police resources), and fourth – well, the fourth is potentially very important indeed.  These referenda may be the first cracks in this country’s draconian and counter-productive drug policy.  If so, and if Federal law enforcement pretty much ignores these anti-prohibition laws (as it has softly signaled it will), then the country could be turning away from imprisoning drug users to ignoring them (when individual use has no effect on the public) or to treating them (as with chronic alcoholics, or even chronic gamblers and chronic angry people).  This will really, really save money, as fewer non-violent ‘lawbreakers’ are chucked into prison for long, expensive, and pointless terms, and in so doing reducing the truly shameful percentage of people (often Black males, but increasingly Latino males) incarcerated in this country.  Further, de-criminalizing marijuana may knee-cap the easy profit base of serious and dangerous drug cartels. 

Weddings:  Maine and Maryland voters approved marriage equity by popular vote, and Minnesotans rejected an amendment to the State constitution that would have outlawed it.  Previously, the handful of states that had legalized ‘gay marriage’ had done so via judicial or legislative action.  As a resident of North Carolina, which disgracefully ratified such an amendment a few months ago, I’m happy to see other parts of the country move toward social sanity.  Combined with the small but significant upsurge in young people’s voting percentages, these States suggest a slow but unstoppable trend toward making DOMA and its correlates go the way of anti-miscegenation laws.  Possible ramifications down the line?  Other than giving LGBT citizens the same opportunity for wedded bliss, purgatory, or hell that straight citizens have, ‘mainstreaming’ gay families could reduce the growing problem of bullying.  Simply being gay, or being a child of gay parents, may sooner rather than later not be a causus belli teenagerus.  Further, more weddings are good for the economy.  Florists, caterers, calligraphers, fashion designers, photographers – rejoice!  Oh, and there’s also the signally important (and oddly Libertarian) issue that the government, on any level, has no business whatsoever policing its citizens’ amatory preferences and bedroom activities, unless they involve unconsenting two-year olds, Gabon vipers, bazookas, and Sarin gas. 

Wombs:  Twenty people with wombs were elected to the United States Senate, the highest number ever in this country.  Congratulations to the newcomers and to the incumbents, all of whom were re-elected. The United States, however, still lags behind most other countries when it comes to female participation in government.  So why does it matter that now women Senators have reached a measly 20% of the whole?  One would hope that there are finally enough women that male Senators cannot make idiotic and/or ignorant assertions about female biology and agency without being immediately challenged and/or ridiculed.  And that such matters as funding Planned Parenthood are not patronized as ‘women’s issues’ but seen as economic and equal rights issues.  And that reasonably progressive (or at least centrist) Supreme Court appointees would be confirmed, and other Federal Judiciary appointments would not be blocked on rigidly ideological grounds.  I don’t believe that women are more ‘accommodationist’ than men in any absolute sense, but I do suspect that many women’s life experiences and cultural positionings make them more comfortable with compromise and mediation than some of their male colleagues in high-powered jobs (which would include the Senate).  Now, if there could only be a big surge of women in the House of Representatives . . .

Wonks:  The new Progressive/Liberal hero is Nate Silver, the wonkiest of all number-crunching wonks.  He even has his own ‘Drunk Nate Silver’ Twitter hash tag (well, it’s not his, but it’s pretty funny).  The point of the Nate Silver celebrity boomlet is simple:  he has predicted the outcome of elections with amazing (to people who don’t understand statistics, which is most of us) accuracy.  Nate Silver is just the milk-carton boy, however, of a whole phalanx of number-crunching wonks who range from serious pollsters (who, despite face-fanning from losing political factions, actually have figured out how to assess the political leanings of people without land-lines) to seriously mathematics-empowered campaign strategists (see:  President Obama’s Chicago operation – why do you think they were so non-spinningly confident for the past few months?).  Micro-targeting, data-mining, poll algorithms – sorry, folks who think politics and more particularly political prognostications are gut emotions – are what prevailed this week and only will become more influential in the future.  Gone are the days that simply repeating a wish (as in, ‘Governor Romney’s got momentum’) will make the wish come true.  And maybe also gone are the days that ‘political commentators’ feel comforable predicting on completely unscientific samplings of a few old cronies’ ‘feelings’ about a race – and are given airtime to do so.  Most wonderfully, maybe also gone will be self-massaging billionaires who let their ‘guts’ open their bank accounts to craven fundraisers who also survey political landscapes by dragging their guts (and greed) across the terrain like foggy retirees wielding cheap metal detectors.

Whackjobs:  Unfortunately, they’re not all gone.  But some of the most flagrant are.  The eminent 18^th-century sexologists, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, will not ascend to the Senate (and will not return to the House, due to their singular take on the Peter Principle).  Absolutely hatefully crazy Joe Walsh has lost his Illinois House of Representative seat to the triple-amputee war veteran Tammy Duckworth, whom he calumnied for flaunting her military service (uh, and she was supposed to disguise her crutches as what?), and absolutely deluded (and probably certifiably insane) Floridian Allen West – the Joe McCarthy-channeling communist hunter who wears his scattering of military medals on his civilian suits – lost his Republican congressional seat as well, although he’s protesting the defeat on grounds that seem as unfounded as they are sore-loserish.  There may be enough whackjobs remaining to keep the House of Representatives dysfunctional, which would be a real shame, considering how we need politicians on both sides of the aisle to be serious about our country’s problems.  Does it help that the Democrats have re-elected their very own whackjob, Florida Representative Alan Grayson?  Probably not.  What might help is that, in the Republican stampede to blame people for this week’s epic fail, the magic finger has pointed (not exclusively, of course) at ‘bad candidates,’ including some of the previously mentioned whackjobs who cost seats for the GOP.  Behind whom are Tea-Party fueled primaries that reward the craziest conservative available.  Maybe this isn’t such a hot idea, fellows. 

So these are some of my thoughts and hopes and trepidations about this recent election.  I have more, of course, but I’m kind of tired of politics for now.  Got to think of new things to write about . . . Duke University Basketball (and maybe North Carolina State’s – who knew?), art projects in Mozambique, fiery Tibetan protests, the problem with American Public Schools, General Petraeus thinking that John Edwards is a good role model.  Stay tuned!

Why Barack Obama Has My Vote

Why Barack Obama Has My Vote

In February, I started writing this blog.  The first entry concerned Mitt Romney’s odd comment about the ‘trees being the right height.’  Since then (almost fifty entries later), I’ve written an eight-hand bunch about the 2012 U.S. Presidential race.  Now it’s almost over.

Which is a relief, I’m sure, to most of us.  Particularly to people like me who live in swing states and have been pummeled with 24/7 political ads over the airwaves and internet, not to mention those inconveniently timed advocacy phone calls.  A sliver of my psyche must admit, though, that I will miss all this hoopla, if for no other reasons than there’ve been endless political fodder to write about . . . lots of interesting stuff to watch on TV (interesting if one gets a kick out of politics) . . . and good excuses for having debate-watching parties.

Seriously, I wouldn’t have written all these blogs if I didn’t care about the election, no matter how absurdly amusing (and sometimes dispiriting) the contest often has been.  Therefore, it seems right to explain (or reiterate) why Barack Obama has my vote.  No snark (or at least not much).  And no attempt to persuade.  As one of my friends so sensibly stated a while ago, she knows how she’s going to vote and doesn’t want to be bombarded with reasons why she should vote differently (or, for that matter, reasons why she’s absolutely right and should steal the yard signs of those who don’t agree with her). 

So for people who have followed these blogs, here are the five issues and stances that have most influenced my vote.  Just so you know.  Transparency, baby!

**Supreme Court and other Federal Judiciary appointments.  There’s no doubt whatsoever that Governor Romney would appoint the most conservative, ‘strict constructionist’ jurists that he could come up with.  (No matter what he thinks personally [although, as my October 24^th blog suggests, I imagine he would agree), he would find this the most efficient way to assuage the ultra-conservative part of his base, and thus he would do so.)  I believe that such reconfigurated courts could easily strip women, ‘minorities,’ gays, union members (make your own list) of hard-won rights.  President Obama has not, and will not, appoint reactionary judges (I dare anyone to show how Supreme Court Justices Kagan or Sotomayor have been reactionary). Judicial appointments have consequences that last long after the term of any particular President ends.

**Foreign Policy.  President Obama has conducted foreign policy with prudence, sensitivity to and knowledge of other cultures and histories, and a reluctance to involve the United States in another ground war – especially in the Islamic world.  All we know about Governor Romney’s foreign policy is that he’s quick to make pugnacious declarations, he’s surrounded himself with Bush (W. variety) neo-cons, he’s BFF with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, he finds it smart to vilify the Chinese in offensively racist ways, and his world-historical and geopolitical knowledge base seems, uh, well, severely limited.

**Infrastructure.  It shouldn’t take Hurricane Sandy for the United States to realize that our national infrastructure – from power grids to traffic tunnels – is at best creaky and at worst, on the edge of collapse.  President Obama sees a significant federal government role in repairing, rebuilding, even re-conceiving our infrastructure.  This is not just a make-jobs project (although that’s probably a good byproduct).  It’s a major initiative that involves energy sourcing, actual attention to demographic patterns, climate conditions, and recognition that individual States and private enterprise could only approach such huge and needed projects in a piecemeal fashion.  Maybe I’ve missed it, but Governor Romney has offered nada/zip/zilch about national infrastructure.

**Science.  Oh, where to start.   One:  this country’s economic strength has been in large part propelled by scientific and technological initiatives supported by the federal government . . . and by a general stance that respects actual science.  Two:  whether it’s climate change or good old evolution or female biology, there’s a scientific consensus about the facts (as opposed to what we should do, given the facts).  The Republican Party, as it now presents itself, seems to take pride in ignoring or belittling many such facts. Governor Romney has not distanced himself from the ideologically reinforced ignorance that seems to dominate his party.  If he is elected President and has a yawping minority of Tea-Partyish know-nothings at his back . . . God forbid.

**The Nature of Government.  Back a zillion years ago, when Civics was still a secondary school course, we were taught about the Social Contract, American-style.  E pluribus unum.  And for that pleasant motto to work, we expected to contribute to the collectivity that was the United States – taxes of course, but also military and public and community service.  Some things could be handled on the local level, and other things could not.  As citizens, we had a responsibility to our fellow citizens, particularly when they were in distress.  Again, it would be easy to evoke Hurricane Sandy here . . . and actually, why not?  No individual State can deal efficiently with such devastation, and relatively poor States (see Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Katrina) may not be able to deal even minimally.  Governor Romney has stated quite clearly that FEMA is not needed, that everything can be best handled by States and, even better, by private companies (another new branding for Blackwater?).  President Obama, obviously, thinks differently.

You’ll notice that in my top-five list I do not include the deficit or, specifically, job-creation.  Issues surrounding the deficit are definitely above my pay grade (which, for blog entries, would be zero); I do not presume to understand much about macro- or micro-economics.  Instead, I have a rather naïve belief that if the five ‘issue areas’ outlined above were addressed sensibly, the United States of America would be in much better shape economically and socially.  It seems to me that President Obama has tried to address them, with varying degrees of political suppleness and varying degrees of success.  It also seems to me that Candidate Romney has not addressed them thoughtfully, and that he is likely to go along with the troglodytic views of the current House of Representatives, if he is elected President and the House remains controlled by intransigent Republicans.

[Neither do I specifically mention health care.  No matter how he tries to run away from what, arguably, is his best contribution to public welfare, Governor Romney did sign into Massachusetts law a health care policy that provided a template for ‘Obamacare.’  Neither plan is perfect, but they both move toward providing medical services for all citizens.  Mitt Romney has said he’d ‘repeal Obamacare on Day One’ of his presidency, but I don’t really believe him.  It’s his plan, or at least one he endorsed in principle and, when it was politically expedient, took credit for.  Maybe this is just wishful thinking . . . ]

Do Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense Spending (the three largest chomps on our national budget) need serious reconsideration?  Does the Federal Tax Code need reformation?

Yes indeed.  Neither 2012 Presidential candidate has put forth a clear vision about how he would attack these problems resolutely.  That’s why I outlined the five issues mentioned above.  These are issues about which, I think, the candidates have given the voting public pretty clear indications concerning where they stand. 

Those indications are why President Barack Obama has my vote.

In Praise of the Day of the Dead

In Praise of the Day of the Dead

Today is the Day of the Dead, the Día de Muertos, Todos Santos (in some parts of Mexico, the Day of the Dead extends to November 2, and in even more remote areas, it’s an eight-day-long commemoration).  Many of us who cannot claim Mexican heritage connect this day with folk art:  with ornate sugar skulls, with whimsical skeleton figurines, with cut-out paper banners showing cavorting bags-of-bones. 

Count me in.  As I write, I can look around my house at two skeletons playing basketball, an articulated skeleton matador, a grinning skull rattle, a tile showing a skeleton pecking at a computer, José Guadeloupe Posada notecards (see the image at the top of this blog entry for this artist’s most iconic engraving, “La Catrina”), a miniature diorama of skeletons enjoying themselves at a tavern. Day of the Dead items have appealed to me for a long time; I love the combination of humor, the bizarre, the satiric, and the generation-to-generation craftsmanship. 

Seven years ago, my mother died on the Day of the Dead.  Coincidences are simply coincidences, I think.  Even so, this particular coincidence has made me consider the Día de Muertos somewhat differently.

If one brushes away artistic display, the foundational acts for the Day of the Dead are to visit a deceased loved one’s burial place, to construct a home ofrenda (a memorial of food, flowers, textiles, and decorations), and to celebrate that person’s importance with a ceremonial meal, shared among family members here on earth and those who are not.  It’s a family reunion with a clear focus:  respect and love for the departed, plus recognition that they’re still important to the living.

In pre-colonial Mesoamerican belief systems, there’s not a clear-cut idea of heaven (or hell).  Afterlife is neither reward nor punishment.  To the Aztecs, for instance, the ‘ordinary dead’ go ultimately to Mictlan, where they exist more or less in a state-of -being quite similar to that they enjoyed, or endured, during their time on earth.  People who die under extraordinary circumstances, like in war or in childbirth, go somewhere different.  In all cases, it seems, the spirits of the deceased enjoy being remembered and feted, just as their descendants (or more sadly, their parents or siblings, as these belief structures were built when child mortality was rampant) feel more whole in the act of honoring their dead.

To me, raised as I was in a rather anemic Episcopalian religious tradition, this view of dead loved ones is profoundly attractive.  No one is performing harp solos on clouds (or screaming in hellfire).  But deceased family and friends do exist, in interaction with those they loved and who loved them.  They’re not particularly meddlesome; indeed, their post-earthly lives are rather happy and fulfilling.  Once a year, on the Day of the Dead, they appreciate reconnecting with those they care about.  And having a special day to do so.

After my mother died, I was talking to my cousin Sarah about our losses (her mother, my Aunt Mary, died from cancer when her children were still young).  Sarah made a comment that has stayed with me:  that she envisioned her parents, my parents, and our other deceased family members enjoying bridge and cocktails ‘up in heaven,’ or someplace equivalent.  Sadly, a couple of years later our much-loved last remaining aunt on our mothers’ side, Eleanor, died also, having been predeceased by her husband and, tragically, by her youngest son.  In long-distance conversations during which we all were trying to comfort each other, we recalled the vision of the celestial cocktail party. 

So the Day of the Dead is an excellent time to commemorate my mother – and my father, my aunts, my uncles, and my cousin.  It’s not that I don’t think about them a lot; I do.  But there’s something special about having a designated day to do that, something my own faith and culture traditions do not afford. 

The day my mother died, seven years ago, looked remarkably like today – sunny, crisp, cool, autumnal, beautiful.  My sister was here, and we were keeping vigil in our separate but connected ways.  Mom had been really sick for a long time, but she died peacefully at home.  Even though neither my sister nor I is religious in a conventional sense, we both thought that maybe Mom would be joining Dad and her sisters, and would no longer be in pain and afraid. 

Therefore, today is a special day.  The customs and beliefs surrounding the Day of the Dead are so very appropriate for commemorating my mom.  She was a smart, beautiful woman who was perhaps best remembered for her generous hospitality.  She knew how to throw cocktail parties.  She knew how to make guests feel welcome (even, remarkably, my teenaged friends way back when, who honestly loved hanging out at our house).  She had many other talents and accomplishments, but they may have been eclipsed by the times during which she lived.  Nonetheless, creating a loving and welcoming home is nothing to be sneezed at. 

She also had amazing patience, particularly with me.  During trying times in my life, she would listen to hours of my anguish poured through the telephone, occasionally offering advice, often just being supportive.  During triumphant times, she rejoiced.  What she didn’t do, with me at least, was ask for support during her own times of travail.  Until she became ill – and even then she didn’t exactly ask.  It was more that her gratitude for what she shouldn’t have had to think twice about, that her daughters cared for her profoundly, was heartbreakingly obvious.

During her last weeks, a lot of my friends – and hers – congregated around her bedside.  With cocktails and hors d’oeuvres and laughter and babies (she always loved babies, because they ‘didn’t talk back’), with which she participated as much as she was able.  After her death, my sister hosted a wonderful party in her memory, attended by friends and relatives from all over.  These events, featuring as they did people who loved her, food and drinks, even things resembling ofrendas (as in photos and memorabilia of Mom), partook of the Día de Muertos spirit.

Seven years later, I try to keep this spirit in my heart. 

Cheers, Mom.  And Dad, and all my other family members who are enjoying that cocktail party in the sky (or in Mictlan).  We who remain miss you, and love you, and appreciate the deep impact you’ve had, and still have, on our lives.  And as we grow even older, we keep learning to appreciate who you were/are, independent of your children . . . which may be the biggest token of respect we can give.

Mom, Dad, and me . . . in front of the first house they owned, in the barrens of Northern Wisconsin.  Even though it subsequently was found to be infested with rats (that tried to eat me in my crib), it was a symbol of my parents’ attempt to make a good life for their family.  They did have cocktail parties in ‘Rat House.’  Indomitable!

Why Mitt Romney's Mormonism Matters: Part Three -- The Deseret Ideal and the 47%

Why Mitt Romney’s Mormonism Matters:

Part Three – The Deseret Ideal and the 47%

I’ve always considered ‘Deseret’ a lovely, melodious word.  I’ve also not known what it means until recently.  A very small desert?  The name of one of Brigham Young’s wives?  A lizard that exists on salt and cactus dew?  Something vaguely connected with Utah, in any event, because it was the first name proposed for the state, and it’s frequently used as part of business and institutional names in that region.

Finally, I looked up the word.  A few stabs at the Google machine and voilà:  it means ‘honeybee.’  Its first earthly occurrence appears to be in the Book of Mormon:  “And they did also carry with them Deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honeybee, and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees” (Ether 2:3), the ‘they’ referring to an otherwise unrecorded people called the Jaredites. 

Mormon linguists have created ingenious, if not very convincing, etymologies for Deseret, tracing it to Ancient Egyptian or to Ancient Hebrew, whereas non-Mormon scholars tend to see it as a neologism coined by Joseph Smith, discoverer and translator of the Book of Mormon.  ‘Deseret’ is also the name of an unsuccessful alphabet concocted in the mid 19^th-century as a hybrid product of universal phonetics schemes, LDS impulses toward ‘ancient’ mystification, and cultural exclusionism (although contemporary proponents claimed that it might help immigrants learn English).  [Note:  The glyphs surmounting the honeybee on the illustration introducing this essay are in the ‘Deseret’ writing system.]

More interesting, however, is the symbolic heft that the word has accrued in Mormon culture.  In its broader sense, ‘Deseret’ means the state of being like a honeybee.  In its happily buzzing metaphorical sense, ‘Deseret’ means being constantly industrious, obedient to the hive, and productive of good results sweet to the spiritual and material tongues.  ‘Deseret’ suggests an entire way of living that encompasses upright personal conduct, meeting family and community obligations, and garnering satisfactory rewards.  It’s quite clear that Mitt Romney, to the best of his ability, has led his life according to what we might call the ‘Deseret Ideal.”

The LDS Church is not the only faith tradition that values hard work and sees it – particularly when it pays off – as a mark of divine favor.  In the United States, we need but look at the earliest European settlers and the varieties of Calvinism they imported (the famous ‘Puritan Work Ethic’).  But whereas people like Benjamin Franklin, under the persona of ‘Poor Richard,’ produced aphorisms promoting well-ordered personal busy-ness (“Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy and wealthy and wise”), both early American Puritans and contemporary Mormons make an extra connection:  success on a material level is an outward and visible sign of interior worth and, therefore, of God’s approval. 

Calvinist attitudes toward work and success, however, are complicated by the doctrine of Predestination (God has already selected the sheep and the goats, so your success is a sign of whether you have already been slated for Heaven or Hell).  Present-day Mormons, as far as I can tell, do not suffer from this anxiety-producing belief.  Living in accordance with the ‘Deseret Ideal,’ as well as faithfully following the tenets of the LDS Church, can secure salvation.  It thus also promotes the illusion of absolute self-reliance. 

Self-reliance is a key part of the Romney family mythology, as attested by the family’s pride in their ancestors’ facility in successfully reinventing themselves in Mexico and in the United States, and by the Governor’s frequent assertions that he earned every penny he possesses rather than having relied on his father’s wealth (he evidently gave his inheritance to charity, about which more later).  It is also a recurring theme in Mormon history and, if this term can be used, Mormon hagiography.

Self-reliance may seem to be a paradoxical part of the ‘Deseret Ideal,’ grounded as it is in assiduous activity that contributes to the wellbeing of the community.  The bridge, it seems to me, between the self-reliant, individually successful bee and the welfare of the hive is the Mormon emphasis on tithing.  Congregants are obligated to tithe ten percent of their income, so the more money they make, the more they can enrich the Church (and rise in its hierarchy).   Over the years, Mitt Romney has given many, many millions of dollars to the LDS Church as well as to charities and causes (such as anti-gay legislative measures in California) that it supports.  His contributions to ‘independent’ charities and institutions are vastly more modest ($1000 here, $500 there . . . and many of these to private schools that his sons attended). 

The ‘Deseret Ideal’ also can account for certain personal traits disclosed by Governor Romney’s family and friends’ reminiscences, such as his tendency to load up his sons with chores, motor straight through to a destination without stopping, and generally occupy his time with a whole lot of work.   Nothing wrong with being driven, with being a hard taskmaster on others and on yourself – most ambitious people are.  What can be problematic is expecting everyone else to be as constantly busy and productive – and thus successful – as you are.  And, in a sort of inverse reasoning, to brand those who are not materially successful as not-busy and not-productive, as not-self-reliant . . . in other words, as irresponsible deadbeats who think of themselves as victims and expect others to support them. 

That would be:  the infamous ‘non-tax-paying’ 47% about whom Candidate Romney complained during a private fundraiser a few months ago.  Everything in his life history and his religious beliefs suggest that he meant exactly what he said. 

Mitt Romney’s remarks reflect not just a general Conservative ideology but also a specific religious belief. To someone who sincerely holds this belief, people who receive government assistance (which includes social security and veteran’s benefit payments, as well as food stamps and Medicaid) are basically parasites.  Not to be rich, or at least well off, means that you are a drain on the system and that your ‘dependency’ is fundamentally your fault.  You are the antithesis of the ‘Deseret Ideal.’  Thus there appears to be every likelyiood that, if elected President, Candidate Romney will have no compunctions about gutting services to the poor as well as ‘entitlements.’  Indeed, he may even see such actions as a moral duty.

Many commentators have discussed the factual misstatements in Governor Romney’s remarks about the 47%, plus his blindness about how ‘privilege’ works in myriad ways (as in having parents wealthy enough to pay for your college education and help you with a buying your first house, not to mention well-connected enough that your patronymic alone will open important professional doors).  I’m interested here in how voters might best determine what he actually thinks about issues and how he would govern. 

The one constant position Mitt Romney has held is complete allegiance to the LDS Church.  He may not want to talk much about his religion, but he has never waivered in his belief, according to the public statements he has made as well as to his lifelong service to the Church.  Therefore, in light of his dizzying reversals on everything else, from abortion to Palestine to ‘caring about’ 100% of his fellow citizens, it seems reasonable to look to his Mormon faith – both its doctrines and its history – for insight into his genuine convictions. 

To do so is not coequal with playing a ‘religious bigotry card.’  We should be able to discuss religion fairly and accurately, as well as respectfully.  That political analysts have been too squeamish to do so is, to me, one of the press’s biggest failures during its coverage of the 2012 election.  

Selected References

[Note:  During this blogatravagaza, I’ve accessed a host of on-line sites.  Here I list ones that seem to me most reliable, in terms of actual Mormon doctrine and in terms of accurate reporting about Mitt Romney and how his religion has shaped his life.  This means I haven’t listed obviously slanted articles, such as the impassioned, interesting, yet clearly biased ones by Andrew Sullivan published in The Daily Beast or by former Mormons who have serious scores to settle, no matter how compelling (well, maybe the Matt Taibbi article has an agendum, but it’s also full of useful information).]

Allen, Bob.  “Romney Defends Mormon View of Christ’s Second Coming.”  Ethics Daily.  August 8, 2007.

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/romney-defends-mormon-view-of-christs-second-coming-cms-9290

Barney, Kevin L.  “On the Etymology of Deseret.”  BBC Papers 1 – 2.  November 6, 2006.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/11/03/bcc-papers-1-2-barney/

Brown, S. Kent.  “When Did Jesus Visit the Americas?”  Religious Studies Center.  Brigham Young University.  2011.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/jerusalem-zarahemla-literary-and-historical-studies-book-mormon/when-did-jesus-visit-americ

Corn, David.  “SECRET VIDEO:  Romney Tells Millionaire Voters What He REALLY Thinks of Obama.”  Mother Jones.  September 19, 2012. 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Davison, Amy.  “Mitt’s Forty-Seven-Per-Cent Problem.”  The New Yorker.  September 12, 2012.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/09/mitts-forty-seven-per-cent-problem.html

The Doctrine and Covenants.  First published 1835. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament?lang=eng

Horowitz, Jason. “In Boston, Mitt Romney ‘evolved’ in Mormon leadership, some churchwomen say.”  The Washington Post.  November 20, 2011,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/campaigns/in-boston-mitt-romney-evolved-in-mormon-leadership-some-churchwomen-say/2011/11/17/gIQAMOoWjN_story.html

Meacham, Jon.  “The Mormon in Mitt.”  Time.  October 8, 2012.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2125510,00.html

The Mormons.  PBS.  April 30, 2007.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/faqs/politics.html

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.  First published 1830. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng

Sheiber, Noam.  “Growing Up Romney:  Mitt, Tagg, and the Romney family’s myth of self-reliance.”  The New Republic.  October 19, 2012.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/108815/tagg-romney-myth-self-reliance?page=0,3

Stone, Andrea.  “Mitt Romney Gives Millions to Charity, Most to Mormon Church.”  The Huffington Post.  August 11, 2011.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/mitt-romney-gives-million_n_924414.html

Swidey, Neil, Michael Paulsen, et al.  “The Making of Mitt Romney.”  In Seven Parts.  The Boston Globe.  2008.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/

Taibbi, Matt.  “Greed and Debt:  The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.”  The Rolling Stone.  August 29, 2012.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

Wells, Gary B.  “Adam-ondi-Ahman.”  1996.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/adam_ond.shtml

Winer, Laurie.  “The Mormon Candidate.”  Los Angeles Review of Books.  August 26, 2012.

http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?id=878&fulltext=1

Why Mitt Romney's Mormonism Matters: Part Two -- American Exceptionalism

Why Mitt Romney’s Mormonism Matters:
Part Two – American Exceptionalism

We’re accustomed to hearing flag-pinned political candidates of all parties spout patriotic pabulum:  greatest country and/or democracy ever, shining city on a hill (a misquote from John Winthrop), God bless the United States of America.  Perhaps it’s unfair to call this ‘pabulum,’ as one would hope that people running for political office do believe that serving the country is a noble calling precisely because the country is a noble – even exceptional – nation.  For most politicians, ‘American Exceptionalism’ is a concept based on the history of democratic governments and the history of the United States as ‘good guy’ (more often than not) in international affairs as well as the recognition and/or mythologizing of our path towards a more perfect union. 

For faithful Mormons like Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, American Exceptionalism means all that – and more.  The ‘more’ centers on the belief that God and Jesus Christ had, have, and will have a unique relationship with the United States.  According to the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants (another foundational LDS scripture):

--The Garden of Eden was located in the vicinity of Independence, Missouri; after expulsion, Adam and Eve relocated to Daviess Country, Missouri.  Thus, God selected a site near the geographical center of what would become the continental United States as the perfect place to create mankind. 

--Jesus visited America after His resurrection in order to teach and bring peace to the inhabitants – then-warring descendants of a Lost Tribe of Israel who had migrated from the Near East to the New World around 600 B.C.E.  The peace lasted only a few generations.  (See the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi.)

--During the Millennium (inaugurated by the Second Coming), Jesus will set up His Kingdom in two places, Jerusalem and Missouri, a belief that Governor Romney affirmed explicitly during a 2007 radio interview in Iowa, in the early stages of his first run for the Presidency. "Christ appears in Jerusalem, splits the Mount of Olives to stop the war that's coming in to kill all the Jews--our church believes that," he explained. "That's where the coming in glory of Christ occurs. We also believe that over the thousand years that follows, in the Millennium, he will reign from two places. The law will come forward from one place—from Missouri--and the other will be in Jerusalem."

--Precisely because of the United States’ privileged position in Mormon eschatology, the ‘Founding Fathers’ were specific vessels of Divine Will, rather like Old Testament prophets, like Joseph Smith [note:  Joseph Smith was the founder of the Mormon religion, the discoverer and translator of the Book of Mormon.], or like Jesus Himself.  Therefore, the United States Constitution is divinely inspired – almost akin to Holy Scripture – and needs militant protection.  Joseph Smith’s “White Horse Prophecy” predicts that the U.S. Constitution will one day be ‘hanging by a thread’ and will need to be rescued by American Mormons. Although this prophecy has not been adopted as official LDS Doctrine, Mormon leaders and commentators from Brigham Young to Glenn Beck have discussed it with approval.

These doctrines are not secret.  They form the core of the distinctive amalgam of patriotism, secular history, and sacred narrative that characterizes the Mormon vision of American Exceptionalism.  The real-life story of Mormonism in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, as its adherents moved from New York to the Midwest and finally to the new Zion of Utah, restaged the pre-historical travails and triumphs recounted in the Book of Mormon.

It’s easy to speculate in general terms how the distinctive LDS view of American Exceptionalism might impact a Romney Presidency.  Given the sacralized view of the Constitution, the most obvious impact point in the domestic sphere is judicial appointments. Certainly, Candidate Romney has been straightforward about his commitment to appoint conservative judges and Supreme Court justices.  But if one believes that the Constitution is a quasi-religious document, the need to appoint jurists who espouse ‘originalism’ – that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning, coordinate with its authors’ original intent – becomes paramount. 

Already, the Supreme Court contains four Federalist Society members (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) who almost always apply originalism to their decisions. [Note:  the Federalist Society is a ‘conservative’ association of lawyers and judges dedicated to promoting originalist legal ideology and grooming future jurists who will put it into practice.]  Mormon convictions about the nature of the United States Constitution and its exegesis make it doubly certain that, under a President Romney, any new appointments to the Federal Judiciary will be the strictest of strict constructionists . . . which could threaten existing civil rights for Blacks, Latinos, women, and the LGBT community. After all, the Founding Fathers – no matter how progressive they may have been in their era – were all white, well-off, straight (as far as we know), and  (duh) male.  Their ‘original intent’ was shaped by these factors (as the exclusion of women and non-whites from full participatory citizenship demonstrates). 

Yet Mormon concepts of American Exceptionalism may be particularly felt in the realm of foreign policy.  If the United States is not only favored by God but also specifically selected to be both the cradle of humanity and the platform for its ultimate redemption, it cannot just be primus inter pares, one country (albeit richer and stronger) among other countries (which may account for widespread Mormon dislike of the United Nations).  The LDS Church holds that the U.S. has a divine mandate to remain absolutely sovereign and, in multi-national situations, to lead with uncompromising conviction.  Therefore, a President Romney might be expected to eschew diplomacy for decisive action, as also indicated by Candidate Romney’s often bellicose and hasty pronouncements about foreign affairs . . . and to ‘going it alone’ rather than building coalitions.

As mentioned above, Mormon eschatology charts two seats of power for the kingdom of Jesus Christ during the Millennium:  Israel (Jerusalem) and the United States (Northern Missouri).  This belief puts a new spin on America’s ‘special relationship’ with Israel.  No longer is Israel our strong Middle Eastern ally primarily because of shared democratic and cultural ideals, not to mention the necessity of having a strong partner in a volatile area crucial to our national interest.  Now Israel is also the staging ground for the ultimate reign of Christ upon Earth, a reign that evidently will be controlled from the United States (from whence, according to Governor Romney, will issue ‘the law’).  New Zion needs to protect Old Zion in the present to preserve it for its future role. 

Such belief has important potential consequences for today’s geopolitics:  commitment (or lack of such) to a two-state solution; willingness (or lack of such) to take a nuanced view of Palestinian claims, complaints, and factional differences; support (or lack of such) for moving Israel’s capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; and – maybe most urgently – willingness  (or lack of such) to sanction and/or participate in preemptive military strikes against Iran. 

I’ve delayed finishing and posting this blog until seeing the last Presidential Debate, which was focused on foreign policy.  Candidate Romney’s odd decision to agree with President Obama on just about everything frankly surprised me.  But after taking a day or two to think about it, his tactics began to make sense . . . not in light of American Exceptionalism per se, but in light of Mormon history in this country.

One thing that documented Mormon history shows is a survivalist instinct. Persecuted and thrown out from one place?  Move to another.  Lose a religious-freedom-argument case in the Supreme Court?  Change doctrine from endorsing polygamy to outlawing it (and in the process, establish the State of Utah).  Undergo increasing criticism about doctrine that prohibits non-whites from assuming positions of authority?  Revise the doctrine.

In other words, do what you have to in order to preserve the essential mission:  to maintain and strengthen the Church of the Latter Day Saints in the exceptional United States so that it can play its pivotal role in the End Times.  Then it’s hardly surprising that a Mormon candidate for President will easily change positions in pursuit of the perceived greater good – in this case, to be elected.  I’m not suggesting that Mitt Romney sees himself as the potential central player in the drama outlined in the White Horse Prophecy (in fact, he has downplayed its importance).  I am suggesting that the Mormon history of shedding inconvenient skins, presumably to keep the essential body intact, may partially underlie Governor Romney’s stunning ability to reverse and abandon positions he has fervently embraced previously.

Here’s a final thought about how the Mormon concept of American Exceptionalism showed itself during the last debate.  Mitt Romney’s only real ‘gaffe’ was asserting that Iran needed Syria as a route to the sea, a comment revealing abysmal geographic ignorance, as Iran has its own seaports.  As far as debate gaffes go, this was middle-level, I guess, not on par with, say, Gerald Ford’s about the absence of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe in the 1970s.  Nonetheless . . .

What Governor Romney’s cluelessness about how Iran occupies a map suggests is a basic disinterest in the brute and incontrovertible facts about our world.  Countries have borders (which sometimes bump up against bodies of water).  These borders have histories.  These histories influence how a country thinks of itself and its sovereignty.  Nothing in Mitt Romney’s on-the-record statements or writings indicates that he has any knowledge of or interest in world history whatsoever.

No one would argue that the Governor is a stupid man.  But he seems to be a profoundly incurious one when it comes to the world outside the United States or outside business deals and financial transactions.  The singular Mormon view of world history, one that may be supported by faith but is not supported by any sort of objective evidence (scientific, archeological, medical, linguistic, etc., etc.) puts America as the alpha and omega of historical process.  If someone believes this, it makes sense that he would not be interested in the histories of other parts of the globe.

And it might make for a U.S. President incapable of clear-eyed assessment of this country’s place in and responsibilities to the global community of which we’re so inextricably a part, no matter how exceptional we may be.

Part One, published earlier this month:  Women

Part Three, coming up:  The Deseret Ideal and the 47%

(plus selected bibliography)

Why Mitt Romney's Mormonism Matters: Part One -- Women

Why Mitt Romney’s Mormonism Matters:

Part One – Women

[I’ve been mulling over this entry for months.  It’s dangerous to attempt to write seriously, and potentially critically, about religion.  In attempt to be accurate and non-polemical, I’ve expanded this blog entry into an article much longer than anyone could be expected to read at one sitting.  Thus I’ve broken it into three parts, with this being the longest as it deals with background and caveats.  The Third Part will have a ‘References’ Section citing key sources.]

Last night (October 9, 2012), PBS aired a documentary about the U.S. candidates for President.  The documentary aimed to interrogate the deep strata of beliefs and experiences that make these men who they are.  Mitt Romney’s Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, or LDS for short) was one focus.

Barack Obama’s faith had been an issue during the 2008 election – particularly in regard to his membership in the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s activist church.  Thus the current PBS documentary paid less attention to the President’s religion than to the Governor’s, which has not been as publically debated.  Even more important, Mitt Romney’s religion seems both to be a core component of his being and a component he is quite uncomfortable addressing. Somewhat surficially, I believe, the PBS documentary attributed Governor Romney’s reticence about discussing his faith to the fact that his great-grandfather’s relocation to Mexico, although seen as pioneering and inspiring by Mormons in general and by the Romney family in specific, was motivated in large part by the need to escape prosecution for polygamy and illegal land deals.

No one disputes that Mitt Romney is an observant and dutiful member of the LDS Church, that his missionary experience deepened his faith, that he carried out his duties as Bishop [a temporary but highly important lay office, akin in responsibility to a Diocesan Bishop in Roman Catholicism, designated by the most senior Mormon leaders], that he honors his family’s history, and that he tries to live according to his religious convictions.  But his reluctance to talk about these things – at least until now, when his campaign is taking a more ‘personal and open’ turn – is due to more factors than the specter of polygamy (which has been renounced by the Mormon Church for over a century).

The Mormon faith is shrouded in mystery, myth, and misunderstanding, to a significant degree because the religion itself does not invite exploration by outsiders (for example, no non-Mormon can enter a Mormon temple) and has propagated an aura of secrecy.  Its history involves fleeing U.S. laws, enduring violent attempts at suppression, and being considered a ‘cult’ by the more mainstream Christian denominations whose members have largely controlled government and industry in the United States (barring in the heavily Mormon state of Utah).  Some idiosyncratic Mormon beliefs strike non-Mormons as peculiar at best, as they are part and parcel of a very new religion that doesn’t have centuries of tradition to ‘naturalize’ it. 

For these and additional reasons, Mormons (like other formerly persecuted groups) have found it wise, and profitable, to nurture extremely close-knit communities that depend on Mormon-dominated businesses, academic institutions, and civic polities:  ‘us’ and ‘them’ writ large.  It’s no surprise, therefore, that Governor Romney – nurtured within and living as an adult as part of such communities – prefers not to discuss his religion with non-Mormons (who would be most citizens of the country he wants to lead).

I do not want to debate Mormon theology here.  The very nature of faith presupposes a commitment that exceeds, or circumvents, or exists in an alternate reality to, provable fact.   This is as true of Christianity in its many forms (or Judaism, or Islam) as it is of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.  That said, some aspects of being a believing Mormon – now, in the early 21^st century – seem to me important to consider when thinking about a potential U.S. President.  And they might be important for such a candidate to confront directly.  So far, Governor Romney has not done so.  John F. Kennedy (first major-party Roman Catholic nominee for President) and Barack Obama (first major-party African American [allied with an activist, U.S. Protestant version of ‘Liberation Theology’] nominee for President) did.

Part One:  Women

I’m NOT referring to polygamy-as-practice here.  That’s old history, except for fringe LDS groups and icky TV programs like Sister Wives.  I am referring to the reason why polygamy was embraced by the Mormon founding fathers:  to produce Godly progeny to populate this land (remember that the LDS Church is a 19^th-century American phenomenon) and the next land, the ‘next’ land being both the United States, as transformed by the Second Coming of Jesus to His favored place (here), and the celestial realms existing beyond the material earth.  Women are vessels for progeny propagation.  Men are the prime movers. 

To this day, the Mormon religion remains uncompromisingly patriarchal.  Not only is the Church hierarchy exclusively male, the LDS Church has no particular veneration of the Mother of God . . . no institutionally sanctioned, respected organizations of female believers . . . no flotilla of female saints and martyrs (as in Roman Catholicism), whose existence in fact and/or in ecclesiastical teaching testifies to the ability of women to effect their own beatification . . . and certainly, as in many but not all Protestant Christian denominations, no female priests or pastors.  When Mormon women marry, they are ‘sealed’ to their husbands for eternity; it’s only when a righteous husband ‘calls’ them to the highest heaven (after his death) that a woman can enjoy the afterlife (and her role and duties remain more or less the same in the celestial as in the terrestrial realm).  Unmarried or divorced women, as far as I can tell from reading Mormon Scriptures, are consigned to a sort of purgatory.  There they await an exaltation that can be effectuated by the community of believers, along the lines of efforts to ‘baptize’ and therefore save non-Mormons.

Why is any of this relevant to the upcoming United States Presidential election? 

As a voter, I would like to know whether Governor Romney thinks that women are truly equal human beings, and equal U.S. citizens.  Would they have significant roles in his administration and in his inner council (family members do not count)?  Would single or divorced women be considered as ‘worthy’ of official responsibility ad regard as married women?  How would female heads-of-state from other countries be treated, apart from with politeness?  Would Mitt Romney’s religion’s views about women as, basically, subservient to men influence his own views and actions about issues such as equal pay and women’s health and aid to single-parent families and public education? 

I have no doubt that Mitt Romney loves his wife with all his heart and genuinely believes that he honors and respects women. I do have questions about whether he can love, honor, and respect . . . whether he can really even conceive of . . . adult female citizens who are not sealed into eternal heterosexual marriage, who may face all sorts of challenges that most people in his fairly insulated community have not confronted, and/or who have talents and ambitions outside of raising a family.  And if he can conceive of such fellow female citizens, so different from the female paragon set forth by his religion, what does he think governmental obligations to them are? 

Mitt Romney began his tenure as Bishop as an ‘iron-rodder’ – an inflexible proponent of his religion’s rules and dogma.  Most reports suggest that, partially in response to female Mormon activists demanding more agency and more theological adaptability, and partially in response to repeated contact with women in crisis, the Governor became less rigid.  He began to listen to his female parishioners’ grievances and recommended some adjustments.  How far this went, and to what extent it represented a permanent change in attitude rather than an expedient swerve to avoid worse problems, is not at all clear.  But if I were a debate moderator . . .

Well, I’m not a debate moderator.  All I can do is raise some questions that I honestly think deserve to be raised.  My purpose is not to bash the LDS (indeed, members of my extended family are Mormons).  But because the United States is unique among Western Democracies in pushing religion to the forefront of political debate, I’m bemused at the silence of U.S. political commentators and analysts about the impact of Governor Romney’s religious beliefs on his political beliefs and potential political practice. 

Part Two, coming up:  American Exceptionalism

Part Three, coming up:  The Deseret Ideal and the 47%

(plus selected bibliography)

Rope-A-Dope in the Briar Patch with the Tar Baby: Presidential Debate Analysis Redux

Rope-A-Dope in the Briar Patch with the Tar Baby:

  Presidential Debate Analysis Redux

Honestly, I’ve tried.  I did the dishes and a load of wash.  I took out the trash.  I read a book (Umberto Eco’s The Prague Cemetery, which is fascinating but not as compelling [to me] as Foucault’s Pendulum or The Name of the Rose).  I tuned the television to crime drama reruns. 

But after my sister called mid-afternoon, still apoplectic about last night’s presidential debate, I could resist no longer.  I switched from an old (and previously watched, more than once) Law & Order to cable news, MSNBC-style.

It appears as if the left-wing-liberal-biased elite media (my viewing option of choice) is slowly recovering from its shock over President Obama’s tepid, at best, debate performance.  The spin seems to be whirling toward fact-checking and hypocrisy-unveiling.  Plus cameo performances by the future 47%-er, Big Bird.  Plus helpfully outrageous sound bites from Romney surrogate John Sununu, who characterized Obama as a lazy pizza delivery boy (Step-and-Fetchit gets hired by Domino’s). 

What hasn’t been discussed as much (in the approximately three hours I’ve reconnected to the political media universe, center-to-left version . . . sorry, but I will develop an ulcer if I have to monitor Fox News in the interest of ‘fairness’) is why the President offered himself up as a haggard sacrificial lamb to a mendacious butcher-of-truth. 

Actually, my sister and I discussed this.  Why was Barack Obama so . . . distracted and sad?  Has he contracted a serious illness?  Has someone in his immediate family contracted a serious illness?  Is there something globally portentous going on that we don’t yet know about, like Israel planning to bomb Iran tomorrow or a failed take-out of the terrorists who assassinated the U.S. Ambassador to Libya or Vladimir Putin (he of awesome sports achievements and superhero exploits) challenging our President to an Ultimate Fighting cage match? 

Maybe.  Tempus edax rerum.  But until then, the pro-Obama story seems to be that the debate non-performance was part of a deliberate strategy.  Don’t come across as ‘an angry Black man,’ don’t be condescending, don’t be aggressive in a way that could alienate the mystical 2% of the electorate that trumpets its indecisiveness.  Kind of a prevent-defense game plan.

The prevent-defense comparison started me thinking.  President Obama plays basketball, so he certainly should know that dicking around with the ball at the end of the game rarely works well.  The team loses synchronicity and momentum, allowing the rival to sneak back into contention. 

Another sports analogy occurred to me, one that might be more accurate in accounting for last night’s debate.  Rope-A-Dope: Muhammed Ali’s famous strategy to defeat the younger and more powerful George Foreman in the 1974 heavyweight championship fight held in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo).  Basically, Ali retreated to the ropes for seven rounds, allowing Foreman to wale away at will.  By the eighth round, Foreman was exhausted and Ali unleashed a furious combination that sent his opponent to the canvas.  Ali won “The Rumble in the Jungle” by playing possum, conserving his energy, then attacking when Foreman was all punched out.

Is this the real strategy behind President Obama’s passiveness last night?  One might think so after watching clips from his highly energetic and wonderfully scathing attacks on his opponent today, in a campaign rally in Wisconsin.  It’s as if the cruddy debate generated a vulnerable zombie army of falsehoods (including false Romneys). But the debate was seen by almost 60 million people, and any single rally is seen in toto by thousands and seen in snippets by a million or so.  As Bill Clinton would remind us, the arithmetic just doesn’t add up.

Let’s get more psy-opsy about this.  ‘Energy,’ when we’re talking about politics as opposed to boxing, refers to mental and emotional resources rather than to physical resources (particularly when ‘physical resources’ can be parsed as ‘money,’ which the Romney campaign is not in imminent danger of depleting).   So could the mental game plan have been to pump up Governor Romney’s ego by giving him an easy standing-eight-count debate ‘win’?  To be so silent about the massive fibs underlying the putative triumph that the media would jump into the breach, correcting the record and casting the ‘victory’ in doubt, rather like NFL fans did regarding the absolute incompetence of the Replacement Refs?  To make the Republican candidate think that President Obama is the Chuck Wepner of this campaign season, a laughable palooka-of the week?  To make Mitt Romney over-confident and thus more likely to step into a self-secreted steaming pile during the next debate (or sooner)? 

It’s a dicey strategy.  A boxing match lasts an hour or so; then it’s over.  The U.S. Presidential Campaign has more than a month to go, so the effects of even a successful strategic move can dissipate quickly, or be eclipsed by off-the-script events.  Yet one could argue that the Obama presidency has often been an exercise in rope-a-dopery, such as luring Republicans into making the first and very unpopular move regarding the 2011 budget.   Remember, though, that rope-a-doping Muhammed Ali won the bout, as did Manny Pacquiao, who also used the rope-a-dope maneuver successfully.

Maybe we should change fields of analogy.  What comes to mind immediately is Br’er Rabbit and the briar patch and the tar baby, mediated folkloristic previews of the rope-a-dope strategy. Although Joel Chandler Harris, the author of the Uncle Remus stories, was white, his tales were rooted in authentic 19^th-century African American tales – tales that signified on the experience of being enslaved and disempowered, that explored ways to defeat oppression through trickery anchored in the oppressor’s own dreams of indisputable potency. 

One could even go all nutso-exegetical, and posit that Obama’s uncharacteristic chin-tucking, stature-shrinking posture was orchestrated deliberately to make him look small and unthreatening in comparison to the stage-dominating Romney.  That the performance was orchestrated to entangle the former Governor in unfortunately sticky substances and/or to get him to chuck the present President into a thorny thicket from which he could escape easily.  That there’s a never-ending Manichean conflict:  Br’er Rabbit vs. Br’er Bear (tar-baby) and/or Br’er Fox (briar patch).  Uptroddation vs. Downpression.  Or that hundred-plus-year-old stories illustrate not only that times’ racial dynamics but also less time-bound economic dynamics.  Br’er Bear and Br’er Fox, power and insider stealthiness, vs. Br’er Rabbit, against-all-oddish agent of resistance, armed only with intelligence, wit, and patience.

The sought-for outcome, in Harris’s now-mind-numbng attempt at dialect transcription of the Briar Patch tale:

Co'se Brer Fox wnater hurt Brer Rabbit bad ez he kin, so he cotch 'im by de behime legs en slung 'im right in de middle er de brierpatch. dar wuz a considerbul flutter whar Brer Rabbit struck de bushes, en Brer Fox sorter hang 'roun' fer ter see w'at wuz gwinter happen. Bimeby he hear somebody call im, en way up de hill he see Brer Rabbit settin' crosslegged on a chinkapin log koamin' de pitch outen his har wid a chip. Den Brer Fox know dat he bin swop off mighty bad.

Maybe someone was thinking along these lines.  Or maybe not.  (After all, President Obama is neither a boxer nor an African American who fits the usual U.S. conception of such a category.)  Nonetheless, I’d like to believe that there was a deliberate rope-a-dope-briar-patch strategy, if only because this would have been a circuitously understandable plan, and a deviously clever one, even if it doesn’t work.  The alternative is that the previously highly regarded Obama team adopted either a proven-to-fail strategy (the prevent-defense) or . . . no strategy at all. 

[Note:  as I was cruising the internet for rope-a-dope images, I found (to my dismay) that a couple other articles (Huffington Post and Daily Kos, for example, had been written using this analogy.  I shouldn't have been surprised, as it's not a stretch, but even so I want to assert that I'd read or heard nothing vis-a-vis the debate beibg an Obama rope-a-dope strategy in (non-) action before I wrote this blog.  I think my perspective is somewhat different.  And so far, there are no competitive briar patches.]