Sometimes, I'm not sure whether I'm angry at my parents, or at John Kerry. (Or at all of the politicians and "leaders" of that "baby boomer" generation.) And I feel a turning point coming, and a need to speak a new truth, and I am wondering what it was like for the previous generation, for them to come to feel a sense of generational unity, as they arose and said "STOP KILLING US!". And I know that my rage is largely based on my feeling, whether it is toward my dad or Kerry, that I am dumbfounded that they, who opposed the Vietnam war and understood that it had been a horrible misadventure launched on a lie -- that they fell for it again.
Because they
did fall for this war, and I, and the other younger folks, didn't. (I know that this, like all generalities, have huge numbers of exceptions. But statistically speaking, people under 40 opposed the war in Iraq before it began, whereas people over 40 thought it was a good idea at the beginning, but now also believe it is a mistake).
And it is the younger folks who are dying. Again. Why did you, our parents, forget what you learned in Vietnam? How could you vote to send the next generation of young people off to die, and suffer? Even when they survive, many come back with deep wounds in their soul -- the kinds of wounds that can cause people to have problems ranging from misery in their personal relationships, to murder or suicide.
And, to pay for this war, the "adults" have been robbing me and those younger than me. That is what deficit spending is. Those in the generation above me make choices about how to spend the money, tax rebates for billionnaires, imperial wars, hand-outs to huge corporate pharmaceutical firms that make large campaign contributions, etc., and have a big party now, and not only am I expected not to have a say in how the money is spent, but I am also expected to pay their bill.
And, during the 2004 election, we, those who opposed the war in Iraq, were told to sit down and shut up so that we would not embarass the Kerry campaign. And, for that matter, we who thought that gay people are full human beings deserving of equal rights under the law were also told to sit down and shut up so that we would not embarass the Kerry campaign. Oh, and also, we who thought that it is pathetic to live in the last democracy on earth without a healthcare system were told that we could not expect Kerry to support universal healthcare because it was too 'radical' -- and we should be happy that he at least would have a plan to somewhat reduce the numbers of Americans without health coverage. And we, the 80% of Americans who disagree with the Bush Administration's continued war on medical marijuana patients, were told that Kerry should not be expected to speak publicly on this issue, because it might make him look "soft on drugs." Frankly, I thought failing to support the right of a sick person to use a medicine that has been legalized by the voters of their state made him "soft on democracy."
George Lakoff (the brilliant author of "Don't Think of An Elephant"), noted that people relate to political leadership as they relate to parents, and that linguistic and philosophical frameworks have centered around Republicans as "strict father" and Democrats as "nurturant mother" (or nururant non-gender-specific parent.) So voters feel (often subconsciously) they are choosing between parenting philosophies, and which parent they prefer.
But for me, it felt more like being asked whether we prefer the violent parent who abuses us, or the complicit parent who sits silently and watches us be abused and does nothing.
Sure, one can argue that the silently complicit parent is the better choice, because after all, at least they are not abusive. But should that be the best we can hope for? Silently watching the abuse, and allowing it to go on also wounds us -- and hurts the spirit by giving the impression that the abuse is okay with you.
When Bush says gay people are bad and should be denied rights under the law, denied access to family medical benefits, and otherwise made to suffer -- the "leader of the opposition" said nothing, and implied that this discrimination was acceptable. As tens of thousands of idealistic young Americans were being shipped off to be asked to kill and risk being killed, the "leader of the opposition" said nothing, and implied that this waste of our lives and our treasure and this waste of our ideals and this waste of our moral standing in the world and this debt being left for the next generation was an okay thing to do. And so then those who were on the fence, those like my dad, (and millions of other moderate to liberal Democrats) then fell for it. After all, if John Kerry, who had the courage to speak out when his own life and his generation's lives were being put in the line of fire, thought this war on Iraq was a good idea, then it must be true.
So now, here we are, over 2000 American lives later (and many tens of thousands of other lives, which are not generally reported), and now, we all agree. The war in Iraq is a mistake, it was launched under false pretenses, it has made terrorism worse, not better, and we never should have done it in the first place.
And those of us who opposed it from the start, and those who supported it in the beginning but now oppose it, need to figure out how to come together, to end it. But part of what is keeping us from doing this as effectively as we could is because there is still bad blood -- there are still hard feelings -- between those who opposed it in the beginning, and those who supported it at first. And we need to figure out how to heal this rift, how to work together now that we are all on the same page, and not just keep resenting each other for our past rift. But, the thing is, we were right. The radical activists in the street who said that this will be a long, bloody, costly war turned out to be correct, and the political leaders and the pundits turned out to be wrong. And I would like to hear them say it. The fancy wealthy news corporations should apologize to America that for 4 years the only national TV news show that has been telling the truth is the one on a comedy channel! And, by the way, may God bless Jon Stewart (Leibowitz), and keep him healthy and truth-telling for many years to come.
The older politicos who pressured us younger ones to tone down our opposition and go along with the pro-war/Kerry position so that we would "win" should admit that voting for the war was wrong, and it is time for us to look seriously at long-term permanent reforms to make sure this kind of rush-for-war is not allowed to happen again. And we have people in harm's way who we need to take care of, and we have wounded (in body and soul) people coming home we need to take care of, we have underfunded collapsing infrastructure at home, and dammit, you better come up with something better than leaving the bill for your kids to pay -- and leaving us nothing in the treasury to pay for it.
And now, Bush has proposed to make this worse - permanently, by giving tax rebates to the dead, and to get the money by cutting services to the living. What is a better use of our collective resources? Tax rebates for wealthy dead people, or funding the basic (and desperately needed) services that make life possible for the living? (You know, minor things like flood control, epidemic prevention, fire stations, schools). But, instead of funding the things that sustain life, the administration proposes to give that money to the dead. PLEASE DON'T LET THEM!
Just in case this metaphor was too obscure: I'm talking about Bush's proposal to permanently eliminate the estate tax. The Estate Tax already has been limited only to the very top percentage of wealth. So, Bush proposes a tax rebate for the wealthiest dead people, while at the same time insisting that we cannot even provide the funds we promised to the Fire Department of New York after 9/11, and that we cannot afford to have a decent healthcare or education system, or competent emergency management of disaster preparedness plans, because we lack the money. This so-called "pro-life" president is not willing to give money to support pre-natal care, to make it possible for someone to give birth to a healthy baby, because he says we do not have enough money. There is no money left for the living, only for the dead (and only if they were very wealthy).
So, that could be one example, a way we could all work toward one solution, to one part of the problem. And we need to come together to figure out how to end this war. And I was wondering what it would take for those who opposed the war from the beginning to re-unite with those who supported it at first. And I realized that in many cases, we are talking about people in our families. We are talking about human relationships, people who know each other, and who disagreed, and perhaps, now agree.
And maybe it is true after all that "the personal is political" -- because I've been feeling annoyed at an entire generation since November 2004, and I know I need to take a next step. I don't care if I never make up with John Kerry, but I want to make up with my parents. I want to forgive them for having believed Kerry then, instead of believing me.