hoffing and puffing

I sincerely hope you will find time to read Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope. It helps articulate a better future for our nation because it is based on a remarkably candid and fair reading of our past and a remarkably balanced and inclusive engagement with our present. It not only points us to our better possibilities; it reconnects US.

I'm serious about my above statement, but even in death George Carlin says things we need to consider. RIP

Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here, like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.'"

Just Consider This -

* the national debt (now nearly ten trillion dollars - that's a 1 followed by 13 zeros) has nearly doubled during the last eight years;

*before the economic crisis, next year's federal budget is projected to have a half-trillion dollar deficit - a precipitous fall from the 700 billion dollar surplus projected when Clinton left office;

*private sector job creation has been 1/6 of what it was under Clinton;

* 5,000,000 more Americans have moved into poverty during the Bush era;

*the number of Americans without health insurance has increased by 7,000,000 during the Bush years;

* the average health insurance premium cost has nearly doubled;

* the Bush tax cut has, on average, saved the wealthiest 1% about $1000 a week, whereas for the poorest 20% it has saved $1.50 per week;

* forgetting the manipulation, bullying, and lying, the direct costs of the war in Iraq have been 600 billion dollars, the loss of more than 4000 American lives, the physical wounding of more than 30,000 Americans, the deaths of at least tens of thousands of Iraqis, the displacement of 4.5 million men, women, and children, and a protracted war that is now a year longer than American fighting in WWII.

NEED MORE?!

A Palinoscopy

This past weekend, in a burst of desperate and irresponsible misrepresentation, Sarah Palin questioned Barack Obama’s patriotism citing his “friendship” with “terrorists” and his failure to embrace “American Exceptionalism.” This latter claim deserves a bit more attention.

American Exceptionalism is a theory initially developed in 1831 by the Frenchman, Alex de Tocqueville, in the course of his study of democracy in America. It has been a central conceptual reference point ever since for generations of American scholars and historians. In its most generic form, it is a theory of explanation about America built around the idea that America cannot be adequately explained by familiar norms or conventional patterns of development and behavior; that is, it is an exception, a unique case built on some exceptional qualities or characteristics.

In any case, Palin’s use of this concept leads me to three observations. 1. Why has the media not asked her to explain it? Why does she have the liberty to draw on a scholarly concept that is not a part of vernacular discourse without being expected to engage it? Why is she exempt from discussing how she came to incorporate it into her political understanding? Why is she not expected to discuss the reasons her understanding of American Exceptionalism, as reflected in her attacks on Obama, seem to be at odds with de Tocqueville’s original understanding of American Exceptionalism?

2. Over the years, American Exceptionalism has been understood in a variety of ways. So, for the moment, let her mean anything she wants by it. That still leaves us with the question of why? Why does a candidate of a political movement and a political party that is aggressively anti-intellectual and unrelenting in its disdain for American academics (i.e., “liberals”) reach into her back pocket and pull out “American Exceptionalism” rather than a Marlboro? Perhaps conversations on Main Street, at hockey games, and on moose hunts in Alaska are different. You betcha they are! Yes, thank God, they are! Up here, Joe Six-Pack and Maverick Jane have heartwarming chats about – you got it – American Exceptionalism! This is a fraud.

3. In any case, Palin got it wrong. There have been various understandings of the specific content of American Exceptionalism, but its positive manifestation refers to something that is remarkable, not ordinary; something that differentiates, not something that is routine; something that sets a uniquely elevated standard, not something that is habitual and jingoistic; something that inspires transforming possibilities; not something satisfied with things as they are. De Tocqueville saw it as the unique blend of values centered in the formation of America’s democratic republic (liberty, equality, individualism, community). Others have identified it with the “work ethic” of Puritan settlers and the patterns of life they instituted in America, or with the notion of America’s special calling to be “a city upon a hill.” In all cases, it is understood as a unique source of strength that makes it possible for America to transcend the habitually expected and an “it’s-US (yeh!)-so-it-much-be-good-enough” attitude. Instead, it expects us to be more demanding of ourselves and to stretch out for nobler possibilities.

This is what Sarah Palin, John McCain, and a disproportionate segment of their supports don’t get. They want a self-satisfied “Unexceptional America”; not “American Exceptionalism.” They like the old song, “Just As I Am.” I like the song of promise and hope from my youth, “We Shall Overcome.” Nothing would be sweeter than to give Governor Palin a first hand taste of American Exceptionalism this November.

October 6, 2008

When So Much is in Disarray, What Do We Need Most – A Leader or A Manager?

In an earlier blog entry, I argued that Clinton would provide a vast improvement over the Bush/McCain team because she was competent, effective, and better attuned to the challenges of our time. Further, I argued that Obama would provide a significant improvement over Clinton because he was a leader who had the capacity to see new possibilities and to inspire others to support the realization of those possibilities.

The choice between McCain and Obama, for me, is about the choice between a manager who operates within existing assumptions, structures, and procedures, and a leader who gives momentum and direction to transforming possibilities. I want to consider the alternatives provided by a President who would be managerial, McCain, and one who would be a leader, Obama. But before I get to that I briefly want to note that even within managerial criteria, Obama is much the better option. He has shown himself to be steady, balanced, well-informed, and guided by sensible policy principles and understandings. The benefits of his approaches to public problems are broadly distributed. McCain represents a party and leadership group that has diminished America life. They have demonstrated no leadership and through an unparalleled record of incompetence, corruption, and disingenuousness have earned a designation of unworthiness even as managers.

Obama’s candidacy asks us to support a leader; McCain offers us a presidential manager. The difference is real and significant. Too often, we confuse leadership with authority. We label people “leaders” not because they exercise leadership but because they occupy positions of authority. These people, with their slick support apparatus, are skilled at capturing authority, but then do not lead. Managers rely on authority; leaders may or may not have authority, but they rely on legitimacy. Obama spoke naked in Berlin; that is, he had no relevant authority to clothe him for that occasion. He also spoke well-dressed in Berlin, having inspired a moving sense of legitimacy from hundreds of thousands of people.

Paradoxically, it is managers who most need us to be followers, not leaders. Managers need a following – people who support and live within their authority and jurisdiction. Rush Limbaugh’s term for his followers illustrates this well. He calls them “Ditto Heads” which is probably the most honest thing ever to come out of his mouth. Leadership operates most effectively without imposing a sense of “following,” but by inspiring a sense of purpose and participation. It mobilizes a more responsible citizenship, it even includes people actively opposed to the direction of change, and it inspires public deliberation and debate about the goals toward which leadership energy is being directed.

Managers operate within the context of structured, formal authority; leaders operate within the context of cultural problems and challenges. When everything is humming along smoothly, running fairly and effectively, there is little need for the contributions of leaders especially if competent and honest managers are at hand. Leadership is necessary when things are not performing well, when there is gross incompetence, when balance and fairness cannot be trusted, when the many are manipulated to protect the privileges of the few; when corruption is unprecedented; and when, for example, one manager (Clinton) hands over authority to another manager (Bush) and with it an annual budget carrying a significant surplus only to see eight years later the replacement manager (Bush) transfer an annual budget carrying a $500,000,000,000 deficit! It seems almost ingenuine to ask if we now most need a manager or a leader.

Mobilizing citizens to contest fundamental challenges to their interests, to the integrity of their values, to the fairness of their public life, to the honor of their traditions, and to the urgency of core issues is the heart of leadership. By bringing people to engagements of immediate challenges, leadership develops a community and nation’s adaptive capacities.

When and why do we need to adapt? What might we consider as we decide whether we most need a good manager who will help us maintain or remain anchored within our current circumstances, or a good leader who will help us adapt to new possibilities?

We need adaptation when we face problems and situations for which solutions lie outside the current way of operating. Managerial challenges present gaps between aspirations and realities that can be closed or narrowed within existing frameworks by applying existing assumptions, understandings, and techniques. Challenges requiring leadership present gaps between aspirations and realities that cannot be closed or narrowed within existing parameters. In the latter case, progress requires more than the contributions of current expertise, authoritative decision-making, standard operating procedures, or the continuation of existing policies and policy managers.

We need adaptation when learning or re-learning is required. In one sense, this happens when we have become a significant piece of the problem. Our understandings and habits no longer serve us as well as they once did. We need to retool our ways of thinking and living. We need to learn new perspectives and possibilities. Of course, if we don’t face collapse or impasse, if we are maintaining a pace of progress and public well-being within current understandings, and if there aren’t emerging challenges unanticipated by the status quo, we’d be better served by working within what we already presume to know. But if this is not the case, it’s time to adapt – to learn.

We need adaptation when the situation requires a shift in responsibility from the shoulders of authority figures and authoritative structures to citizens themselves. Managerial expertise is just what the doctor ordered when things are working well and competent, fair, and honest managers are in ample supply. Too often we make the tragic error of treating adaptive challenges as if they were managerial ones. We wait for persons in authority, managers, to figure out what to do. Tragically, they can’t and they don’t. The challenges require exactly what managers will never be able to provide – a different form of deliberation and a different way of taking responsibility.

We need adaptation when we no longer distinguish between what is most precious, honorable, and essential and what is most expendable, dishonorable, and corrosive within our culture. Adaptation leads us to cherish the best from our history, leave behind what damages us most, and learn innovations informed by the best that will help us thrive in new circumstances. In this sense, the need for adaptation is both authentically conservative and progressive. The purpose of innovation is to conserve what is best in our traditions and experiences and to use them to move our communities and nation to a better future. Obviously, this process generates resistance in people because certain elements of our past need to be let go and transcended. In this context, leadership has two overarching tasks: it must deal with the various forms of anticipated and realized losses than accompany transformative work, and it must wisely identify that which is most worthy to be conserved.

We need adaptation when the way forward requires an experimental spirit. Managers will do fine if we are confident in the answers we know and if the answers we accept give us the results we need and want. If we don’t know the answers or if we are not getting desired results from the answers we accept, we need to give something else a try. In short, we need to be experimental. Under these circumstances, the need for an improvisational leader far out-distances the need for an efficient manager trapped within failed assumptions and results that extend the distance away from our goals.

We need adaptation when focused attention and accountability have been lost. Managers, especially in times of disintegration, are masters at displacing accountability and diverting attention. And both tactics work well in the short term, even if the consequences are disastrous in the long term. Their special talents are scapegoating, blaming, externalizing and demonizing the enemy, killing the messenger, fake remedies, committees and surges of one kind or another, code messages designed to fan hatred and prejudice, and outright denial. Leaders draw attention and call us to share in an expanded realm of purpose and accountability.

We need adaptation when coping is a disservice because there is a general failure to thrive. Managers are well suited to the work of coping. If we are well, coping is the work most needed. If we are not well, coping only accelerates our further demise. Then we need leadership that can contribute to a vital and thriving national life. Thriving for a democratic society must mean more than the survival and success of one’s own kind. In extraordinary times, it may even mean that we will consider trading off our own survival for values such as liberty, justice, and principled purposes. The adaptive work of leadership is needed to clarify values and to assess the realities that most fundamentally challenge the realization of those values.

Barack Obama will be no more immune to failures than John McCain. His human capacities are no more immune to error and misjudgment than McCain’s. However, he does offer a more fair and insightful engagement of most issues. He does offer a break from personnel, policies, and privileges that have demonstrated damaging service to the well-being of the American people. And most of all, he does offer a vision of the presidency that is rooted in leadership rather than a managerial administration. He understands, and he relentlessly seeks to bring us to an understanding, that the central challenge facing the American people today is to recognize the difference between managerial technique and adaptive leadership so that we are strong enough to support public officials who will tell us the truth rather than pander to us or manipulate us with fear and deception when no easy answers are at hand.

We need Barack Obama. Barack Obama needs us.

August 1, 2008

NOTE: This blog is informed by and based on the analysis of Ronald A. Heifetz in his article, “Adaptive Work”, Demos, 2003.

Have I Been Too Generous to American Conservatism?

I never imagined it was possible for me to be too generous to contemporary American conservatism. For me, contemporary American conservatism (CAC) is dangerous to the well-being of a healthy democratic society because it denigrates the public life of a civic-minded people and weds itself to the protection of the narrow interests of a privileged few. In addition, it is a betrayal of the powerful and valuable insights of 18^th and 19^th Century philosophical conservatives who discerned the difference between habits that limit and debase human possibilities and noble traditions that uplift us to higher accomplishments; who believed that liberty was a life giving force that made us stronger, not more vulnerable; and who understood that change was an essential ingredient in the conservation of history’s most precious human accomplishments.

Those are, of course, some of CAC’s “macro” failings. Even within the tangential complexities of “micro” settings, it exhibits fundamental flaws. First, it has abandoned fiscal responsibility for the sake of lowering taxes. Fiscal responsibility reflects admirable prudence; formulaic tax cutting slides quickly into idiocy. Second, it has mastered the techniques of politics without sufficient commitment and attention to the hard work of legitimate governance. If political success in gaining electoral power is not tied to positive and responsible governance, justice is abandoned and politics is reduced to a power grab. Third, it has transformed morality from a committed engagement of matters of substance and purpose into a technique for manipulation and partisan control. Fourth, it claims an identity that is radically contrary to the realities it is responsible for creating. Best example: CAC lives by the mantra of “limiting or reducing the size of government” even though the size of government has expanded substantially on their clock as a direct consequence of their choices.

Nevertheless, I actually assumed that CAC was built around a set of principles and purposes. I quarreled, often profoundly, with my understanding of those principles and purposes, but granted them a place at the core of the conservative movement in America during the last half century. A recent article by George Packer, “The Fall of Conservatism,” has led me to doubt my generosity. CAC, as a political movement, seems to be most remarkable in that its shape and momentum have little grounding in positive principles and substantive purposes. From Nixon thru Bush/Cheney/Rove, Parker argues, those who have lead and given form to CAC have limited themselves to the negative characteristics of an insurgency movement.

The crucible for CAC is a broad and deep set of shared resentments. It has mobilized those resentments through a politics of blame that uses angers, stirs anxieties, camouflages bigotry, exploits hate, deepens divisions, wets passions, and manufactures a polarized society amenable to its successful manipulations. No wonder the legacy of governance created by CAC is one of poor stewardship. Its thirst for power is fueled by control and revenge; not responsibility and accomplishment. It offers a consistent record of inattentiveness (long before Katrina), incompetence (even though it advocates a meritocracy), a lack of accountability (that’s reserved for single parent women, illegal aliens, and kindergarten teachers), corruption and cronyism (Scott McClellan’s account reconnects us to a lineage too long to remember), purposeful disregard for our government’s oversight safeguards (consider Bush’s latest response to political prisoner rulings from a Supreme Court reshaped by CAC), and notorious attempts to expand executive power outside the Constitutional framework (what do Watergate, the Iran-Contra Affair, and Iraq have in common – CAC!). What a legacy!

I think there is a reasonable way to examine the core character of contemporary American conservatism to assess whether it is balanced toward a negative agenda fueled by resentments or toward an agenda of positive purposes and principles. The approach I propose is to use a criterion that is routinely used by conservatives to represent their movement and then measure the evidence of their behavior by their criterion.

One of the most common and widely used representations of CAC is the claim that is a “realist” political movement. Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, reflected on the conservative tradition from Buckley, Goldwater, Nixon, Buchanan, Agnew, Kirk, Reagan through Gingrich, Rumsfeld, Podhoretz, Cheney, Rove, and Bush. What he highlighted from that tradition is this: “One thing I’ve loved about conservatism is its keen sense of reality.” Recently, “realism” was the defining characteristic celebrated by conservative dignities at a forum to honor the life and contributions of William F. Buckley Jr. held at the Princeton Club in New York City.

It’s odd for a movement that trumpets absolute principles and truths to measure itself by a standard of “realism” – an inherently relativistic criterion. Realism is unavoidably relativistic because its content is necessarily dependent on the contingencies of changing contexts and because it begs the question of the criteria by which reality is defined either by ignoring that question or by imposing arbitrary answers. Personally, I never accused CAC of being realistic. But if that’s what its luminaries think they are, let’s take a look at the evidence.

You may see it differently than I, but this is how it looks to me. I can’t see what’s “realistic” about imposing a war of catastrophic human and fiscal costs based on lies and deceptions. I can’t see what’s “realistic” about ignoring the advice of a consummate realist – Machiavelli – who insisted that conquest is always the easy part, consolidating stable and secure control is the difficult part. I can’t see what’s “realistic” about an educational policy limited to one-dimensional assessments of outcomes without any investment in or commitment to the ingredients from which those outcomes are formed. I can’t see what’s “realistic” about a health care policy that expects emergency room services to handle the medical needs of the uninsured. I can’t see what’s “realistic” about abstinence-based birth control programs that consistently lead to higher numbers of unwanted pregnancies and significant increases in sexually transmitted diseases. I can’t see what’s “realistic” about defending and honoring freedom by erecting barriers to its use and by arguing that to live within liberty’s principles and procedures is to jeopardize the nation’s security. I can’t see what’s “realistic” about trying to lead the world by imposing unilateral policies that express contempt and indifference to anyone who’s not already in our back pocket. I can’t see what’s “realistic” about being unwilling to talk to adversaries. I can’t see what’s “realistic” about opening up off-shore drilling to solve current supply/cost pressures when even the American Petroleum Institute says none of that oil will get to the American market in less than ten years. I can’t see what’s “realistic” about being unable to acknowledge some of the central issues of our times – wage stagnation, inequity, health care, racism, global warming, the national debt, for example. Recently, Roger Kimball, speaking at the previously mentioned Buckley forum in the name of conservative “realism”, mocked the idealism reflected by “the audacity of hope”. Perhaps my problem is that I actually find a demanding realism in audacious hope that I don’t find in “tickle down economics,” “magic of the marketplace,” or “compassionate conservatism” just to pick a few terms arbitrarily.

Where can I see a kind of “realism” in contemporary American conservatism? I see a certain ruthless realism at work in conservatism’s manipulative mastery of fear, of the media, of elections, of vulnerabilities. Just two examples illustrate, for me, conservative “realism”. 1. It is a bitter pill to swallow knowing that the American people did elect Al Gore and may have elected John Kerry only to be left with eight years of incompetent, corrupt, and divisive “leadership.” 2. When “realism” makes evasive service in the Alabama National Guard appear to be more honorable than decorated leadership in Vietnam, there can be little doubt that something fundamentally unprincipled is at work.

Although improbable, it seems possible that I have been too generous about contemporary American conservatism. In spite of my deep dissatisfactions with its direction and consequences, I assumed that a set of positive commitments and purposeful objectives gave it form and direction. No person and certainly no collective movement is ever unalloyed. But it is reasonable to inquire where the center of gravity is located. Using conservatism’s own criterion – “realism” – that core is less purposeful than its rhetoric implies. It is fueled more by negative energy than positive purposes. And the reality that seems to satisfy it most is the struggle for and the exercise of power. The greatest offense of conservatism in America today, is not against independents, liberals, and Democrats. Its greatest offense is its distortion and betrayal of honorable voices from the conservative tradition. George Will knows it. He just won’t say it.

Inside Out

During the past week, three people at the core of my life were the center of my thoughts and emotions. Each case was unique, but in each one I felt haunted, inert, and ineffectual. I was unable to ease Bird’s tormenting self-doubts about her medical boards. I couldn’t access credible words of comfort for the painful mourning that overwhelmed Shoshana because of the tragic death of her remarkable friend Marilyn. And I was unable to find or create a more enduring affirmation and voice for Ryan’s extraordinary art show that closed last Saturday. Perhaps I can talk most effectively about each one if I talk about them together. The resonances they have for each other may be the best I can offer to any of them individually.

Bird has created a life of remarkable accomplishments as a student and person. She has absorbed correspondingly demanding expectations for herself in her studies, in her roles as wife and daughter and sister, in her friendships, in her professional responsibilities, and in maintaining the integrity of her own life. In her case, this has not led to a foundation of confidence but a recurring pattern of anxious self-doubt; she readily projects herself coming up short as she faces the next round of responsibilities and obstacles.

I want Bird to know that I respect the significance of the challenges she faces; that I admire her for taking them seriously; and that I am proud of her accomplishments in meeting them so well, so consistently. I also want Bird to be freed of their burdensome weight. In part, I want this for purely instrumental reasons – she simply does better when she is not crippled with doubt and insecurity. But most of all, I want this for reasons that I believe connect her and all of us to our greatest strength, our greatest health, and the most honorable expressions of our humanity. We must be diligent and steadfast in building our lives as much as possible from the inside out.

We live in a world that has been captured by the opposite practices and perspectives. Everywhere we turn the expectations are for us to form our lives from the outside in; from the “not-me” to the “me.” It is the most profound loss of meaningful autonomy any person can suffer. We soon become who we were not and never intended to be.

I don’t want to be misleading. There is no “inside” separate from the “outside.” But there is a unique inside for each of us that reflects the way we have incorporated our engagements with the world to form a sense of identity and self-knowing – what we stand for, what we enjoy, what we do well, what gives us meaning and satisfaction, what has priority, what expresses our commitments, and who we are and want to be. That is the “inside” to which we must be grounded as we reengage the world around us.

Bird’s commitment to be a fine doctor means that there is no way around the boards, but Bird’s commitment to be a fine doctor will never be achieved simply by doing well on the boards. It will be fulfilled by who she is and how she uses that to create a world of competent, dedicated service. That’s what I mean by building from the inside out. That’s where we need to be centered, even as we take on the daunting challenges presented to us externally, whether we do well or not as well in meeting them.

Sometimes the externalities that impact our lives pose not only high stake challenges; they overwhelm us with the agony of arbitrary, permanent loss and bring crippling pain. This has been the suffering thrust upon Shoshana this past week due to the loss of her college friend, Marilyn. Bird, Maureen, and I really don’t know Marilyn intimately, but her death is an enormous loss for us because of who she was for Shoshana. She was the friend who really knew Sho, loved Sho for who she is, knew what it meant to stand by her friend for her friend’s sake more than for her own, and who had an exquisite touch – the ability to hold her friend accountable for her shit while unconditionally loving her as she is.

Why do we lose someone so special, so vibrant, so life-affirming, just days after she has given birth to a precious baby girl and on a day that glowed with warmth and happiness for her family? How can you balance your life from the inside out when the “outside” seems to exert such a cruel and unyielding dominance? Is the notion of building your life focusing from the inside out a dangerous illusion that ultimately knocks our legs out from under us? I think not. Here’s why.

The “outsides” of our lives – tests, fads, salaries, popularity, BMWs, physical health, status, lovely homes, personal attractiveness, death – have considerable impacts on our lives. But they do not define the meaning and value of our lives. We do. There is no meaning out there. There is no value out there. We determine value and the role our values will play in forming our lives. We define their meaning in our lives. That is why, I believe, it is so essential when significant elements of our world create challenging blocks to our aspirations or when precious parts of our world have been taken from us that we remember what remains in our hands is the opportunity and responsibility to determine the meaning of these conditions.

We must acknowledge external realities, but we determine their value and meaning. Marilyn has died. That’s a reality we can’t deny or undo. But we are the ones who will give value to her life and memory. We are the ones who will give continuing meaning to her life through memories that will make her meaningful and alive in our lives today and tomorrow.

What happened to Marilyn is embedded in the natural possibilities of this world. What it means is up to us, not nature. Similarly, to put the meaning of Marilyn’s death in God’s hands is to make God cruel, arbitrary, or both. What it means is up to us, not God. What we value in life and what life means to us is the “inside” of our lives that we manifest in how we live our lives. On one side, it is who we show the world we are, and on the other side, it is what we understand the world to be. Taken together it is why we live and what we live for.

Perhaps this is the difference between genuine art and aesthetic pandering or decoration. Genuine art is built from the inside out to create value and to express meaning. Aesthetic pandering and décor build from the outside in to satisfy established tastes and standards. There is nothing more sterile and transient than “art” that was “in” during the 80’s or 50s or 90s or whenever. And there is nothing more vital and enduring than art that gives us a unique vocabulary and voice to engage the continuing flow of our lives. Ryan’s work has the qualities of genuine art.

Yes, he IS my son (in-law), but I refuse to let that silence my own best judgment about his talent. He could be a remarkable young man and a fabulous husband for my daughter, but a crappy artist nonetheless. That’s just not the case, however. He is a wonderful person and an inspiring artist. What do I find in his work that leads me to see it this way?

His art comes from the inside out. Its immediacy triggers curiosity about value and meaning. You know it has been formed by intimate, autonomous intentions that grab your attention. Exactly what it is saying is elusive, but you know it’s not a repetition on already familiar, patterned themes. It doesn’t presume to determine value and meaning for you; it arouses interest and nourishes reflection in you.

But most of all, Ryan’s images are complex, subtle, and riddled with the tensions of paradox and irony. Are those horses ultimately one or two? How do we make sense of the relationships between human contrivance and organic nature – an apartment building that grows grass (or is it hair?)? Why does melancholy touch a child’s nostalgia for a tire swing? What’s the interplay between pure abstraction and suggestive representations? Are those larger monochromatic spaces foreground or background for those smaller explosions of color and dynamic energy? How does the most radical unit of fragmentation and separateness, a dot, provide the only basis for creating solidarity and a monumental sense of mass uniformity? How does the most radical unit of uniformity and connectedness, a single line, provide the only basis for creating differentiations and an elaborate sense of intricate complexity?

Ryan’s art invites us to engage in the most essential and honorable work of human life – to articulate value and to clarify meaning. He doesn’t make that work easy for us, but he does make it worthwhile. He doesn’t let us off the hook with simplistic images readily incorporated into conventional idioms. He offers compelling riddles that are at the heart of human existence’s most profound mysteries.

Thank you Bird. Thank you Sho. Thank you Ryan. What I couldn’t find a way to express to you individually; you gave me a way to express to you together.

May 12, 2008

Bitter Pills

The bitterest pills I’ve been asked to swallow recently are those offered up by John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

I have no idea whether or not small-town Pennsylvanians would choose to call themselves bitter. But I do know that it is not elitism, arrogance, or disrespect for Barack Obama to communicate their circumstances as ones that could legitimately generate bitterness and anger. Nothing is more out of touch, arrogant, and disrespectful than to pretend that everything is going well for people who are paying disproportionately high costs.

They disproportionately have suffered the loss of sons and daughters for a war based on lies and conducted with arrogant incompetence. They have seen their jobs disappear or move out of their home town and country. They carry the strains of limited availability, if any, of essential medical services. Their pensions have been lost or are in jeopardy. If they had modest savings, they have less or none today. They have witnessed the diminishing vitality of communities to which they have deep roots and admirable loyalty. They struggle to make monthly payments on credit card debts and mortgages sold to them under exploitative conditions. They know that “accountability” is for them, and “bail outs” are for someone else. And as they struggle with under-employment and unemployment, they have the opportunity to watch Fox television cover the oil industry defend record profits while they pay over $4 per gallon of gas to drive wherever necessary just to find a job.

It is shameless for McCain, Clinton, or Obama not to acknowledge their privileged positions. They, like virtually every leadership option offered to the American people, bring with them some form of elitism. They have been the disproportionate beneficiaries of American opportunities. The real issue is this - do you use the advantages of your position to give voice to the real challenges faced by a broad cross section of the people you seek to serve, or do you use your advantages to convince people they should accept their deformed and limiting circumstances. Call it what you will, but I know that there is nothing more profoundly disrespectful than to manipulate people against the truth of their own circumstances – to tell them that they are just fine and all is well, when the heavy burdens they carry go unaddressed, even denied.

Barack Obama is right. It is time for change, and that change can’t come soon enough! It will be sweet, but only because there was one privileged person who knew, who said, and who did something about a world gone sour for far too many decent people.

April 12, 2008