A new wind blowing
T.A. Barnhart
The wind is grooming the trees. A month ago, we were in the middle of the longest stretch of snow and sub-freezing weather most of us can recall in Portland. Although not evident at the time, a great deal of damage was done to trees and other vegetation not prepared or adapted to that kind of weather. The ice storms we see more frequently blast out branches and whole trees almost immediately; our recent winter wonderland left without doing a lot of visible damage.
Trees, like humans and other animals, grow scraggly, ragged and weak at times. Now and then, as this weekend, the wind comes along with great vigor to knock the deadwood from the trees. In a forest, this windfall adds nutrients to the soil and helps new growth develop and prosper, keeping the forest healthy. The thinning helps trees survive fire by ridding the crown of the most flammable materials, transforming fire-fuel into soil-food. Here in the city, of course, the branches falling all over town litter gardens, clog rain gutters and scratch cars. Neither trees nor wind can be blamed for the foolish ways we impose our unnatural will on nature, but that doesn't mean it's not a nuisance and a bother to many people.
I suspect, at some point, Obama will be blamed for similar inconveniences to daily life. Americans are always looking for someone to blame for the woes of the world; the American Left's variation on that theme is to piss all over their allies who do not see Truth as they do. I thought it might be possible to at least inaugurate the man before we condemn his failures, but it's not to be.
I love days like today. The sky was a beautiful pale blue, bright and clear. The wind, frigid as it was when gusting, refreshed me as I walked from my house to Trader Joe's. I was not the only one: dogs and their owners, in particular, seemed giddy to finally be able to run freely through Woodstock Park or just walk with long, free strides through the neighborhood. The week looks to hold promise of more of this: sun, wind and cool, beautiful weather. I am almost bummed I am not yet riding my bike (the ribs have yet to heal enough, not to mention Corey and the gang at 7-Corners just got my bike yesterday).
In less than forty hours, we will make a cliche come true: Our long, national nightmare will be over. For the first time since the Supreme Court's Coup of 2000, we will have a lawfully elected President. To paraphrase the new First Lady's somewhat careless but honest words, I will at last be proud of my country again. When Barack Hussein Obama swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States, he, unlike his predecessor, will mean it — and do it. And after he takes the oath, he will give an inaugural address I am sure will touch the souls of all those in the world who yearn for peace and justice.
I wish he could as easily use his eloquence to undo the harm of the past forty years, but that's not only not possible, it's not his job. His job is to lead; it is up to the rest of the nation to do the work of change and restoration. As the new President's partners in this work, our first task will be to understand what he is doing. What he will not be doing is using his big brain and pretty words to think up clever ways to fix the economy and bring world peace on schedule over the next four years. That's just not how things works. Whatever ways are attempted to repair the world will be piecemeal, jerry-rigged and 2-steps-forward-1-step-back. Humans lack the ability to see the future beyond the next four or five minutes, so even if our movement ahead is incremental, it is enough that is forward. We will stumble our way into the future because that's what humans do. We'll find things that work, others that do not, and we'll either survive or die in horrible agony. There's little Obama or anyone else can do to change that.
But what he can do, and what we can grok and live, is to practice a new kind of politics that, to those used to the partisan, selfish, immature, wienie-waggling ways of Washington, will seem like political anime. Few in Congress recognize Obama's politics; Rahm Emmanuel, his Chief of Staff, is only just beginning to understand how his boss sees the world. The mainstream media is fully clueless, which is no surprise. So are "progressive" pundits like David Sirota and the brave writers at Alternet who, having been elected to nothing, have responsibility to no one but own egos and visions of Truth; nonetheless, they are willing to declare loudly and without fear what the guy who actually became President must do what they say he must do in order to avoid being an abject failure.
Thankfully, millions of American citizens understand the Obama Method. It's the reason they chose to support his candidacy when he was a total no-hoper; it's why they gave his campaign record amounts of money, time, love and votes, ensuring he became our next President. They get it not because they have special insight or because the koolaid they drank had that Baracky Special Goodness; they get it because it's both simple and necessary. All that is required to understand what is necessary to bring change is to possess the desire to see the world change once and for all. As a Zen Obama might say, "There is no way to change. Change is the way." Change is not what the Beltway, the media or the Entrenched Punditry desire; business-as-usual, in all its lovely flavors, is the beverage of choice for those observing on the outside as the rest of us are steamrolled by the Forces of History.
I ask you this: If I get, how hard can it be?
You can look around Portland today and see a cold day; crap being blown all over the place; a lousy day to be a Ravens or Eagles fan. Or you can enjoy the beauty despite the problems and recognize that it's a waste of time to be pissed at the way nature operates. Perspective is vital.
Barack Obama is not going to pick fights and game people. Old political pros don't understand this, but I'm guessing most Americans find it easy enough to follow. I think most of them, at least those not given to cheering on divisive politics at the expense of the common good, would explain "change" with a word: "Duh." Which translates roughly to: Honesty, respect and communication. Not the values or practices we're used to in our politics, but it is why Barack Obama was elected president.
It's a beautiful day out there, folks. Even if you have to clean your gutters and pick up a bunch of twigs and leaves, enjoy it. If you never have before, it'll make a wonderful change. You won't get it until you do it.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 18, '09
Great essay, TA!
A book came out in 1980 called "Changing of the Guard" by David Broder. It would be interesting to read it now because I think among the "up and coming" leaders he mentioned were people like the Clintons.
This is another generational change.
But if I recall the book correctly, there were comments in it along the lines of "Gee, we got elected/appointed to powerful positions and now our role changes".
I think Rahm Emanuel's more careful language lately has a lot to do with that sentiment. And he is now an employee rather than a Congressman and has to think about not reflecting poorly on his boss.
I am willing to give Obama, Merkley, and Schrader a chance. The people who are jumping on them already need to consider running for office themselves in 2010 if they think they can do a better job.
Otherwise, I want to say to them, "Oh, grow up! You won the election, quit trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good! Actually getting things done takes problem solving skills, and potshots at allies don't accomplish anything."
Jan 18, '09
To paraphrase the new First Lady's somewhat careless but honest words, I will at last be proud of my country again.
Her exact words were: "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."
How anyone can construe this as anything other than an expression of a "degree" of pride is beyond me. Just today, I told my son how "really proud" I was of him for volunteering to spend the weekend at his grandmothers painting her living room/dining room. Does that imply I was not proud of him before his selfless act? Of course not.
The only way the attack against her works is to ignore the word "really." Which is exactly what THOSE people did. There was NOTHING careless in what she said. Only carelessness in how people manipulated the truth of what WAS said.
10:14 p.m.
Jan 18, '09
I'm usually one to appreciate the grace and fervor of the wind myself, T.A. It's natural to enjoy the sounds and whipping up of the wind through the branches of trees.
Sadly, it's chosen to knock down about 15% of my perimeter fencing in the backyard, leaving me new vantages of my neighbors I'd not had the fortune to take in before Saturday.
So, while most are enjoying the D.C. cold or warm rooms with television or streaming video, I'll likely be getting a head start on my active service for America... by rebuilding a fenceline with the neighbors that I'd not met before this weekend.
The spirit of working together... ah. :D
Jan 18, '09
The wind went nicely this morning, while listening to Sherlock Holmes in The Five Orange Pips, in which there is an identical storm blowing, while Watson is commenting on how it embellishes his reading a sea novel. It wss a wonderful recursion.
Jan 18, '09
to be honest, as many people suspect, i'm usually just pulling stuff out of my ass (but that's how most writers work; they just don't use that particular phrase). it's very cool to see that the wind was doing more than giving me a place to write from. i love the idea that all over the Pdx area, people were paying attention to the wind in a variety of different ways. i get a feeling it's like all the "special" people looking up at the eclipse in the first episode of Heroes: just sensing there is something more going on.
Patch, i love your good humor!
Jan 18, '09
T. A. Barnhart:
When Barack Hussein Obama swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States, he, unlike his predecessor, will mean it
Bob T:
Well, this is the guy who said in an interview that he felt that the Constitution's "essential restraints" are things the court needs to "break free" from whenever it needs the results it wants. Oh those pesky restraints!
Bush and friends probably felt that there were "pesky restraints" to be break free from in order to do the "security thing". Who is anyone else to decide when those "pesky restraints must remain? Do you really think someone who'd say that essential restraints really don't mean anything in the end is someone who really cares about the document?
The Constitution and Bill of Rights has been shredded slowly but surely over many decades, and contrary to what progressives say, it doesn't magically reappear intact every time a Democrat enters the White House.
Bob Tiernan
Jan 19, '09
Well I sure don't "get" why he had to have that troglodyte, Rick Warren, give the invocation. Or as But as Tbogg said, "I no more understand the need for a religious invocation at a secular political event than I do the need for the national anthem to be played before a ballgame."
Jan 19, '09
I need to preview again after I change the text. "As Tbogg said". Or rent some new fingers.
Jan 19, '09
It is my imagination, or do I see a lot of emerging paralells between Obama and JFK? Are we due for another "Camelot"?
Jan 19, '09
Eric, I hope we are due for more than "one brief shining moment".
The original Broadway production of Camelot was between late 1960 and early 1963. So when JFK was shot in Nov. 1963, many were familiar with the great voice of Richard Burton singing the title song. It was especially poignant to hear the last lines from the original cast recording of Burton singing,
Don't let it be forgot That once there was a spot For one brief shining moment That was known as Camelot
Hopefully, Obama will have a longer tenure in the White House, many successes, and live to watch his children grow up.
I say that as someone who was in high school when JFK was president--yes, that makes me old!
Jan 19, '09
You're right, LT, but I was also referring to the was some are fawning over Michelle Obama the way they fawned over Jackie when Jackie became the First Lady.
It's one of many paralells that have come up in the last few weeks...
Jan 19, '09
Re: "...the American Left's variation on that theme is to piss all over their allies who do not see Truth as they do."
You right-of-center Democrats love to talk about people being pissed on. Here's an excerpt from the thread to which I first posted at BO (My comments on the U.S.-Israel attack on Gaza were deleted while the threats against my family were retained):
Posted by: J. Smalls | Aug 19, 2006 1:23:15 PM
I'll say let's go over to his house and yell at him from the sidewalk where we can legally be (Kari, you in?). Pissing on his carpet, however, will have to wait until late at night when we are drunk and less worried about the fact that will very likely end us up in jail...
Posted by: Joe Rowe | Aug 19, 2006 7:00:53 PM
J Smalls--no one says it better!
Posted by: demionhesse | Aug 20, 2006 10:51:07 PM
Kari: please explain why comments about Democratic Party policy are off-topic while threatening statements, love letters, and talk about tv shows is on-topic...I've noticed that you only deleted Peter and Harry's comments...
The "American Left", which is an oxymoron if I ever heard one (similar to "Western Civilization"), does not post to BO. It's you and your morally challenged saviors who are doing the pissing.
12:49 p.m.
Jan 19, '09
Harry, i'm right-of-center? really? in what universe? dude, i happen to think Karl Marx was right about a lot of things and that the sooner we stop pretending capitalism, as practised in the USA, is nothing more than state-sponsored socialism and do it right -- socialism for the people & not the corporations -- than the sooner we can end a lot of our problems. obviously the s-word is verboten but that's only because too many Americans are afraid to confront hard facts.
right-of-center? are you practicing a comedy routine?
Jan 19, '09
Eric, as I said I was in high school when Jackie Kennedy was First Lady. She set the style of many women--whether they just aspired to dress like her or actually did.
Except for the election night dress (apparently designed to be a summer dress, not to be work with a sweater), Michelle has that sort of style.
And it isn't fawning to say Michelle has great taste in clothes except for election night, or that Michelle and Jill Biden should have talked about their outfits because some women thought the colors clashed. (The sort of women who have dealt with situations like mother of the bride and mother of the groom making sure they were wearing colors that look good together.)
And it was a major moment when Michelle was on a late night TV show (Leno?) and bragged about her J Crew ensemble.
This country needs all the economic stimulus it can get, and if Michelle wears American designers and from American retailers and talks about buying clothes online, she will be seen as more down to earth than most First Ladies AND as encouraging American business.
Jan 19, '09
Voltaire admonished people discussing philosophy to define their terms.
So are "progressive" pundits like David Sirota and the brave writers at Alternet ...
T.A.: What do you mean by "progressive" with quotation marks, as above, and without quotation marks as in "BlueOregon is a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip."?
Jan 19, '09
Harry, i'm right-of-center? really?
Presumably, T.A., you see yourself as not being right of center. Where are you, then? Center or left of center?
Jan 19, '09
T.A.:
The mainstream media is fully clueless, which is no surprise. So are "progressive" pundits like David Sirota and the brave writers at Alternet who, having been elected to nothing, have responsibility to no one but own egos and visions of Truth; nonetheless, they are willing to declare loudly and without fear what the guy who actually became President must do what they say he must do in order to avoid being an abject failure.
Brad Schlozman, second in command in the Civil Rights Division under Alberto Gonzales.
"I just want to make sure we don't start confining ourselves to, you know, politburo members because they happen to be a member of some, you know, psychopathic left-wing organization designed to overthrow the government."
Different folks with similar strokes.
6:45 p.m.
Jan 19, '09
Bill B: Presumably, T.A., you see yourself as not being right of center. Where are you, then? Center or left of center?
on His Right Hand, of course. i answered that already, Bill.
re: progressive. the trouble is that the word is undefined. it means different things to different people. for Hillary, it allowed her to avoid the L-word during the primary. i see progressivism as a way of doing politics, not tied to any particular issue outcome. most, i think, see certain issue outcomes as progressive. i'm not sure Sirota is much more than an 20th Century liberal, which is a fine thing to be if you're as bold about it as he is. but if you want to know what my definition of progressive is, you don't have to look any further than Howard Dean.
Jan 19, '09
...but if you want to know what my definition of progressive is, you don't have to look any further than Howard Dean.
In that case, T.A., we appear to be on the same side of the fence.
re: progressive. the trouble is that the word is undefined.
"Progressive," like "liberal," is used in most cases to have different meanings to different people, but if people use either word they should give some indication as to what it means.
Jan 20, '09
Yes, the prob. isn't that word is undefined. No word with a usage is undefined, as meaning=use. The prob. is that it is used inconsistently. It's a circular def. as you can't agree what the word means until you agree what it would look like, which I would think is the essential meaning. They're data driven, moving towards what is generally regarded as "a better society". Since that's anyone's definition, and since the Reagan years we've cultivated a culture of "my data" and "your data", it's not surprising that the word has no consistent denotation.
You may disagree with Harry, but I wish people would act like they understand that his logic is sound. It was careful to qualify that liberal is an oxymoron in the US. In other words, US politics is in a different universe. TA may think of himself as on the left, but I'm sure he also thinks of himself as an American Democrat. Harry basically said all America is in a different universe. That's the one, TA. I'm not agreeing. There's an element of naive realism to the logic. By the "alternative universe" theory, TA would be far to the left. The statement makes logical sense, though, if you are comparing a member of the American thought alternative universe to the "real political spectrum", where he would end up slightly right. That assumes the reality of the "real political spectrum".
Maybe there once was such a thing and was based on common education and logic. The sorry fact of the matter is that like it or not, marketing in English has taken our model to every corner of the globe. It takes over native institutions from the bottom up. A person living in Soweto might know what works and doesn't in society first hand, get an excellent university education and be fully supported in progressive politics, but he/she goes home at night and flips on the tele for entertainment. It doesn't matter what language the programming is in. At some point it will cut to an English language commercial for "rock hard abs" and promote all the frauds the English language has specialized in since the Normans showed you could use language to conquer far more efficiently than the sword. When the commercial is over, they go back to watching Oprah. You want a less prosaic answer? Israel had a great parliamentary system, until they decided they were missing the American style fun of a directly elected President. Look at Israeli politics before and after.
In an ideal world, in a just world, progressive would be a label that only got applied in the past tense. You would have to be judged to have been progressive. At the end of the day, all politics since the Romans has been two party, basically; people that want change and people that don't want change. Progressive isn't so much about politics as about your attitude towards society. When does an individual want change as opposed to the status quo? The progressive, in the extreme, says, "No one succeeds until everyone succeeds". The regressive, in the extreme says, "I've got mine, now go away". (Harry has put that much better). It's only related to politics, i.e. change or no change, to the extent that extreme regressive thinking is the #1 motivation for wanting no change.
<h2>This is the #1 battle progressives face. Being regressive is correlated with being conservative. If I only care that I get mine, and I have it, I don't want change. Those that want change, however, might still think regressively- I want change so I can get mine- or might think progressively. Progressive conservatives sound odd because the are odd. By this, they are saying, "I don't want change. I want to keep on the way we are until everybody has what I do". Barry Goldwater comes to mind. As such, progressivism requires more commitment and concern than political consciousness does. It is more. Politics is about governance. Progressivism is about society. They only overlap to the extent that society is what the politics is governing.</h2>