Character Smears and Character of America

The predominant claim by political entities that campaign against the character of the opposition candidates is that they are protecting the character or integrity of the office. In fact, they degrade the character of the office as much as they degrade the character of the voter. Political culture of character assassination does not improve character of the office or of the country, but lowers it to the level of pettiness, nastiness, maliciousness, vileness and ugliness. And that does not improve the character of the office or of the nation; it degrades both.

To create a political culture of character assassination, is to create a political culture of abuse. Abuse then becomes the way of the political process, putting into office the people who are most skilled at abuse - and frequently at nothing else. That leads to wrong people being in the office and implementing wrong policies - in many cases, given the way they got into the office, policies that are completely destructive and injurious to the people. So that, when a Rick Santorum claims that "sometimes it's good that people struggle" as he votes for a bill to make it harder for single mothers to have their children in babysitting while they are working, we see the product of the abusive character in politics and what it stands to do to the people.

It is not only the ones in office that end up being encouraged toward wrongful action. The politicians' abusive behavior also trickles down to the voter. It influences people to behave in abusive ways to their families and to the people over whom they have influence. And that by itself is a source of needless suffering for millions. The constituencies that are abusive, or that want to be abusive, thrive on such politics. The more abusive the constituency, the more drawn it is to the politics of character smear. The level to which an individual or a constituency supports character smear campaigns is a good measure of the individual's or constituency's embrace of abusive practices in their own lives. And the more political life is based on
abuse, the more people take the example, the more abuse becomes the reality of people's lives.

The abusive character of the political culture trickles up to the office-holders and down to the regular people. And then not only is the character of the political discourse diminished, but people's own character gets worse and worse, as does the lot of people at the receiving end of their behavior.

That, is the true degradation in character that has taken place in politics of America. And the way to restore both statesmanship and American character, is to see through abusive smear tactics and demand dignity in the political process. The people who practice character smear campaigns, are themselves the worst character in the country and commit by their actions a far greater wrong than anything that the people whom they attack could be conceivably accused of having committed. Not only do they bring abuse into politics, but they also influence people to become abusers themselves. And that not only injures the credibility of America; it also injures countless millions of people who stand to be at the receiving end of abusive behavior by people influenced in such a way.

So whenever one sees character smear campaign, it can be said with accuracy that the person doing such campaigning is an abuser, just as it can be said that someone who supports such campaign is likewise possessive of an abusive frame of mind. And bringing dignity and respect back to America requires growing beyond such despicable tactics and creating a culture of dignity in the political process. A person who truly is interested in character will concern himself with character which he encourages in the people. And if he campaigns abusively and influences people to be abusive, then it is him that exhibits the truly unworthy character and does true violence to the character of the political office and of the country itself.

Read more

Obama: Better man to fight terrorism

Obama is a better man for the war on terrorism, for a very simple reason. It is not just bombs that deter terrorists, but also improvement in the condition of the lives of people in Middle East and better view of the Western world. Terrorists feed off two twin problems: Bad living conditions and ill will toward the West. And it is by addressing the two, convincingly and effectively, that the spell of jihadism can be broken over the people of Middle East.

The Australian army has figured this out, and is doing the right thing in Afghanistan. Not only are they involved, as all armies on the ground, in the military operations against Taliban, but they also are building schools for children and training adults in skills such as carpentry. In this they are tackling the two root problems. They are giving people a chance at a better future, and they are building goodwill in the people toward the West. That makes them a lot less likely to believe or join entities such as the Taliban.

Whereas Republican policies are completely blind to this obvious dynamic. They just want to come in, bang up the place, and declare victory. Then they want to claim that the hatred that Middle East has toward America is because of its freedoms. That is false. While the jihadists do in fact hate everything that is not Sharia, the people support them because of the blindness, arrogance, greed, irresponsibility and stupidity of Republican policies in the region.

The Reagan administration encouraged Islamism in Middle East as part of its war against Communism. What made them believe that Islamists would be more partial to USA than the Communists? Either it was a huge oversight, or we are seeing something sinister. And why would McCain, who has similar ideas on these matters as did Reagan, solve the problem instead of adding to it?

Another misconceived policy was in regards to Afghanistan. America armed and trained mujahedeen against USSR. When USSR withdrew, American policymakers forgot that Afghanistan existed. It was not long before these same people turned their guns away from USSR, which no longer was on the map, to USA, which was. The people felt used and betrayed. This gave a fertile ground for jihadists, whose tactic has been to feed off any sentiment against the West or any part of the West and use it to turn people into terrorists.

Indeed the terrorists have done this: Infiltrate any constituency that has a problem with West or with Israel or with government. Goal? Turn them all into Sharia thugs. Republican policies do not begin to address this problem, as they are focused solely on military action. But to truly end terrorism, it is necessary to also remove the true infrastructure for supporting terrorism: Ill will toward the West, and bad living conditions, of people in Middle East.

To succeed over the long term, any anti-terrorist action requires that people in Middle East be given good view of the West as well as a chance at a better existence. And while nobody is advocating that the war against Al Quaeda and Taliban be brought to a halt, in order to create and win the peace it is requisite to apply approach similar to one that is being taken by Australian forces in the region. It is necessary to win the war; it is also necessary to win the peace. And that can only come from action that benefits people on the ground as effectively as it combats the militants in the hills.

Read more

Immigration and Synthesis

The problems that the children of hippies experienced have been blamed on the supposed bad parenting of them by the hippies. This is wrong. The root of the problem is that the parents lived by one set of values while living in a society that ran by another. The exact same problems have existed in other similar situations - Hindu children who were raised in America; children of the people with American sympathies who were raised in the Communist countries; children of Mexican or black people who were raised in racist societies; children of liberals who were raised in conservative parts of America. And given dynamics involved such problems are inevitable.

What is loved at home, is hated outside the home. What is loved outside the home, is hated at home. The child either tries to please both at once, or goes entirely one way in either one or the other direction. Both tug, pull, make all kinds of demands. And neither home nor outside the home will completely accept, as the two worlds hate each other and, when they are at war, both demand complete loyalty - against the other world.

So the blame-the-hippies people got it all wrong. It's not the problem with the hippies; it's the problem of living by one way in a society that lives by another. And this is going to happen all over the world, and all over America, by people on any side of any divide, for as long as the forces are not understood and not dealt with in an intelligent and rightful way.

Banking on the illusion of world war II generation being right, a speaker at Republican convention in 1992 said that right and wrong is "what your grandmother taught you." Let's see. That would mean, for the boomers, the flapper generation; for my children, the boomer generation; and for me, my Stalinist grandmother. Then there was the "back-to-the-basics" or "back-to-the-roots" movement. So that means, you want me to "go back to my roots." Really? You want me to become a Stalinist? One word for such attitudes: Idiocy. Two words: Complete idiocy.

These one-size-fits-all solutions are wrong because one size does not fit all at all. And far greater knowledge, wisdom and understanding is achieved by people using their minds proactively and arriving at their own solutions than is achieved by having one ill-fitting mold imposed by one or another band of thugs.

When raised among conflicting worldviews, systems and beliefs, the person has claims laid on him or her by everyone. The home wants complete loyalty and claims betrayal if one goes with what's outside the home. What's outside the home wants complete loyalty and claims betrayal (of country, "values", whatever) if one goes with the home. Then there's more idiots who claim that such people "lack integrity" or "are at sea." There is a good reason for that. We are dealing with people who've been raised in many worldviews and who therefore cannot have single mind about things unless their minds are completely locked. The only form of integrity that is available to someone who's experienced many worldviews is what I call dynamic integrity - the integrity of mind as created dynamically through insight and cross-examination of the perspectives among one another. Which, in many ways, is a process that leads to far greater knowledge and understanding than does static integrity of sticking with whatever "roots" one is supposed to have.

The intercultural flux accomplishes this: expose people to different mindsets. That means that people are removed from false comforting myths of one or another worldview and must use their brains. That is for the better. The more people have to use intelligence, the stronger it gets, the greater the knowledge and intelligence of the population. And the greater its capacity of making truly responsible choices that actually have a chance of being informed enough to create worthwhile outcomes.

On the way, are found all kinds of dangers. One woman I've known about had been a respected professional in the Soviet Union. In America, she was nothing, and she kept saying such things as "I used to be a person once." An older writer who had been vice-president of the Soviet Union Writer's Guild was reduced to going to restaurants in his Soviet-style suit and glasses selling people his book. His input: "We are Russian, and that's all we will ever be." In both cases, immigration was most likely the wrong decision - another evidence against one-size-fits-all solutions, whatever the ideology of the day may be.

To be completely American is to betray Russia. To be completely Russian is to betray America. But to see the right and the wrong in both, and to combine the rights while eliminating the wrongs - that, is a way to serve, embody, and improve both at the same time.

The mindsets can be combined in all kinds of ways, from optimal to worst to all between. One negative combination can be seen in my UVA classmate and fellow Russian immigrant Sam Vaknin, author of book on "Narcissistic personality disorder," who is using the Soviet tactic of pathologizing dissent to pathologize all potential sources of dissent from the party line of his profession - and in the process pathologize also all potential sources of innovation, ingenuity, entrepreneurship, drive, passion, creative thinking, and risk-taking to which America owes all it has. Another negative combination is found in those who've brought to America the Russian social authoritarianism and are using Russian-style dogmatism to empower oppressive agendas like Christian Right. Seeking a sustainably positive state of affairs, I am taking a different path of integration, and using American can-do spirit, enthusiasm, and entrepreneurial mentality to bring into America the Russian passion, poetry, romanticism and intellectual thought.

Too many in America have no value for the poetic, the romantic, the intellectual and the philosophical. With people lacking value for these, those naturally inclined toward such pursuits run into all kinds of nastiness, which leads many people to see the wrong attitudes responsible for such affects as rightful. They are not. The Soviet Union (and many in Russia before that) equated capitalism with evil and business with crime. The people naturally entrepreneurial became criminals - black marketeers, "speculators" (illegal resellers), "prohodimets's" (system manupulators), and later bandit capitalists. This likewise led many to believe the attitudes responsible for these affects as rightful. They are not. The problem is not with poetry, romanticism, arts or philosophical thinking any more than it is with business. The problem is with societies that have no value for these legitimate, worthwhile endeavors, and thus not only injure and criminalize those capable of these things, but also
fail to tap into the potential of these people and employ it for the benefit of the country and its people.

Russia will benefit from seeing the value of entrepreneurship and giving legitimacy to the process, allowing it to be done in legitimate ways and raise Russian material standards of living. America will benefit from seeing the value of passion, poetry, and conceptual thinking, and using these things to enrich people's minds, selves, relationships, and experience of life and one another. There is no unfixable flaw with either Russia or America. The problem is with wrong attitudes traditionally held by both populations. Replace those false limiting traditional attitudes with attitudes that see and apply instead of hindering human potential, and both places will bloom.

Read more

The Superpower Syndrome

Having for 12 years lived in the former Soviet Union - and for 18 years in America - I have seen a malignancy shared by many citizens of both countries. I refer to it as the Superpower Syndrome. 

The affliction manifests in slightly different forms in the two countries, but its essence is similar. The afflicted believes that, because his country is great, he is great just by virtue of having been born in that country and needs to do nothing whatsoever in order to make himself great. The possessor of  Superpower Syndrome claims unconditional greatness as derived from his country and believes he does not need to develop intelligence, wisdom, goodness, or personal cultivation, and indeed that such things are against his country. Instead he derives his concept of greatness from his concept of patriotism - manifest in tunnel vision, barbarism, cruelty, ignorance and hatred of everything existing outside his home. 

The afflicted might believe different things and mouth different dogmas. The American may say "Money talks, bullsh*t walks"; the Soviet may have said "he fears me, that means he respects me." The American may tell his children to say "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"; the Soviet taught his children to say "proletariats of all countries unite." What both societies had in common, was the belief that they catered to the lowest common denominator - and as such were arbiters of reality, humanity and life itself. And both, in pursuit to the aforementioned beliefs, trivialized, demonized or destroyed everything that is more subtle, or less easily quantifiable, or requiring an attention span greater than that of an average TV commercial to understand. 

This of course has been the very worst feature of both superpowers. An American may believe that people who rightly appreciate - and draw into their lives - the appealing ideas and customs of other civilization is a poser. A Soviet may have said that the same person was the enemy of the proletariat. An American may believe that personal cultivation (as pursued in cultures such as France and Japan) is wussy or weakening. A Soviet may have said that such things were bourgeois. Having both received their political systems from erudite, finely cultivated intellectuals (Jefferson and Franklin in America; Marx and Lenin in USSR), they both turned viciously and barbarically anti-intellectual and anti-artistic, claiming the same to be artifacts of aristocracy rather than a natural human right - a pursuit that develops the people into the best they can be and enriches, invigorates, and gives wisdom, color and bounty to the countries and the citizens of the countries, whatever their income level and profession. 

Both, in the process, have seen quite hideous demagoguery. As the Soviets referred to luxury, sexuality and prosperity as vices of capitalism, so have American demagogues sought to portray intellectual, philosophical and artistic perspectives as being elitist or un-American. Whether or not they are elitist, or "vices of capitalism," is beside the point. All that the Soviets attacked in their demagoguery - and all that Americans have attacked in the same vein - enriches human existence and elevates it to a level above the "bottom line," however that is defined in each country. Furthermore, it gives expression to the most magnificent in the human being and allows it to do what it naturally seeks to do: Add color and beauty and elegance to human existence and make our world an improvement on nature and not a degradation. 

The truly obnoxious feature of Superpower Syndrome - afflicted individual is his equation of swinishness, cruelty, barbarism and sheer idiocy with morality. Believing himself to speak for human nature, he attacks, destroys and demonizes all aspects of human nature other than ones his country espouses as human nature while grotesquely indulging the aspects of human nature his country believes to be bottom line. An American who wants something other than acquisition of property, and a Soviet who wanted something other than to serve the state, comes under hideous and vicious attack - not because they are in any objective sense wrong (they are not), but rather because they violate the respective nation's ideological concept of what is human - and, by violating the nation's dogma of what is human (and consequently its pretense of being the unchallenged provider for fulfillment of human nature) constitute a blow to the very ideological precepts on which the country's claim to legitimacy is based. 

In pursuing the Superpower Syndrome, the afflicted of course harms his country far more than he helps it. To keep out of one's country the good ideas of other countries, is to fail to incorporate wisdom, insight and genius that exists elsewhere and lead one's country to fall behind. To keep people from developing the beautiful, the thoughtful, and the artistic, is to impoverish the experience of the people and to turn one's country into something hideous and grotesque while failing to incorporate ideas that form spontaneously in the culture. To keep people from developing cultivation, is likewise to impoverish human experience. And to say that one thing is human nature or bottom line, while everything else is not, is to do grave violence and grave disservice to humanity and especially to one's own country. 

When the Soviet Union fell, many possessors of the Soviet version of Superpower Syndrome were left in a pretty bad place - a place that of course they had richly merited. America has so far been able to avoid similar fate due to a more intelligently designed system, but it has had a number of close calls. I still encounter Superpower Syndrome among American people, and that is something that I believe intelligent Americans ought to combat. The Superpower Syndrome is a drain and a blight, not a benefit, for the country, and in destroying the best that appears in the culture it leads to its long-term ruin. 

Read more