Are we really in a war? Much of the political muck sounds polarized and divisive. Red and blue, right and left. And center sounds so good, so balanced. No one likes to be extreme.

As an Orthodox Jew, the idea of ideological warfare is a lot easier to swallow. We are, after all, the world’s oldest counter-culture. Living in another culture while preserving your own is like standing on a down escalator- if you don’t walk up, you’ll end up being dragged down.

It’s a lot easier to grasp that there’s a war on if you know the players. One of the biggest players from the left side is the PLM. The idea of the PLM is best explained in a fiction book State of Fear by Michael Crichton:

“Has it ever occurred to you how astonishing the culture of Western society really is? Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Average life spans increased fifty percent in the last century. Yet modern people live in abject fear. They are afraid of strangers, of disease, of crime, of the environment. They are afraid of the homes they live in, the food they eat, the technology that surrounds them. The are in a particular panic over things they can’t even see– germs, chemicals, additives, pollutants. They are timid, nervous, fretful, and depressed. And even more amazingly, they are convinced that the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around them. Remarkable! Like the belief in witchcraft, it’s an extraordinary delusion– a global fantasy worthy of the Middle Ages. Everything is going to hell, and we must all live in fear. Amazing.”
“How has this world view been instilled in everybody? Because although we imagine we live in different nations– France, Germany, Japan, the US– in fact, we inhabit exactly the same state, the State of Fear. How has that been accomplished?”

Evans said nothing. He knew it wasn’t necessary.

“Well, I shall tell you how,” he said. “In the old days– before your time, Peter– citizens of the West believed their nation-states were dominated by something called the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower warned Americans against it in the 1960s, and after two world wars Europeans knew very well what it meant in their own countries. But the military-industrial complex is no longer the primary driver of society. In reality, for the last fifteen years we have been under the control of an entirely new complex, far more powerful and far more pervasive. I call it the politico-legal-media complex. The PLM. And it is dedicated to promoting fear in the population– under the guise of promoting safety.”

“Safety is important.” [Evans said.]

“Please. Western Nations are fabulously safe. Yet people do not feel they are, because of the PLM. And the PLM is powerful and stable, precisely because it unites so many institutions of society. Politicians need fears to control the population. Lawyers need dangers to litigate, and make money. The media need scare stories to capture an audience. Together, these three estates are so compelling that they can go about their business even if the scare is totally groundless. If it has no basis in fact as all.”

Further examples abound

I amend the paradigm only slightly, or include another “L”- Learning centers. Public schools in America are by nature in favor of big government. Teacher’s unions (to whom all the teachers- who teach your children- are beholden), teach their young students what politicians, the law, and the media reinforce. They pressure their children to get into “good schools” that teach way too much epistemology, and convince them to commit subtle shades of fraud.

A politician is always looking out for his own interests. Always. If not by nature, and the better politicians, those who entered with an eye to serving the public, then by nurture. Winning an election, getting into power, staying in that power, requires constantly obtaining things- votes, money, favors- and the pattern of taking creates a dynamic of self-interest, in looking out for number one.

All politicians do this. Good politicians are aware of this. They can try to temper it. The best politicians, the ones who make statesmen and leaders, simply broaden the definition of self. I am interested, fiercely, selfishly in my community, in my state, in my country. No one denigrates the need for self interest. We all want the best for us.  A Talmudic dictum: If I will not be for myself, then who will be for me?

To an extent, that would mean that there isn’t the accepted, easily trashed conflict of interest between a leader and his earmarks. Depending on their content, and in moderation, they are the mark of a skilled, and not necessarily corrupt, politic. I disagree with the concept of big government. Vote it out if you can. However, while the system of the federal government doling out money to the people is the basis for providing services (which it is right now), it is the duty of every politician to provide for his people.

The stink of politics occurs in the sellout, the gross grabbing of government for things which will not serve the people, or serve them marginally. Charter schools with a Senator’s name. Money for grasshopper research. It’s always better spent.

That being said, it is noteworthy to see that the PLM (politic, learning centers/university, and media) have gotten what they wanted- unlimited money and their man in the White House.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2008/11/want-some-gover.html

This is worse than sellout; this is abuse of power. It leaves a longing for a statesman. And again, the only ones who suffer in this game our people like us. It would not be wise of us to forget the abuse.

The media starts to admit that they were biased, beginning with the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101002610.html

Oops. All of the sins, none of the repercussions. Unless people (that’s viewers like you) start using alternative media.The moral of the story – If you let people do it for you, they will do it to you…now is not the time to be apathetic.

Part of getting involved is being able to trust ourselves to appreciate the subtleties and separate politics from policy. Charles Krauthammer wrote a brilliant endorsement of John McCain during the campaign. Christopher Buckley and Peggy Noonan wrote articulate, passionate endorsements of Obama, which was their opinion, and right, as it is mine to disagree with them. Kathleen Parker wrote a famous string of position pieces against Sarah Pain, and received 12,000 hate emails. No need to start calling names, or sending hate mail. That’s what center in the center-right means. That’s the difference between fanatic and idealist.

One of the most ringing endorsements for Obama was from Ms. Noonan, about just that difference between personal and professional politics:

A great moment: When the press was hitting hard on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter, he did not respond with a politically shrewd “I have no comment,” or “We shouldn’t judge.” Instead he said, “My mother had me when she was 18,” which shamed the press and others into silence. He showed grace when he didn’t have to.

Grace in victory, and in defeat. In John Mcain’s concession speech:

I urge all Americans … I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.

Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.

One of my neighbor’s daughters was telling me that in her high school, they abolished Color War. You know Color War- the school gets split into two teams and they create cheers and run races. Silly, healthy competitive fun. Right? Well, apparently not. Her school abolished Color War because they didn’t feel that all of the girls would have a good experience, that they couldn’t lose well and play together.

This may explain a new attitude in politics, America’s ultimate Color War. If red and blue can’t figure out a way to get together, if they can’t all line up in the end and shake hands and say “good game”, then we’ve lost something. All of us.

We should learn to separate the personal from the professional. Something the media failed to do in the last election cycle, This is something many people on both sides, in the heat of the moment, forget.

We cannot afford to do so now.

The Palestinians and Muslim world are unhappy with Emanuel. My faith in the rhetoric of the campaign being just rhetoric is slowly coming back. Perhaps we will have a centrist Obama.

Apparently not on the economy, the market doesn’t really have so much faith in him.

But McCain was a valiant candidate, and most properly eulogized:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110602570.html

Before we get so excited about a “new” America, though- voter turnout was basically the same as 2004:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/11/06/pdf.gansre08turnout.au.pdf

…and even then, Obama only got 16% of the new vote. Apparently, Obama won because it was a Democratic year and we had an economic crisis. History repeats itself.

If you’d like to have a look at the new president-elect’s web site, it’s http://www.change.gov/