Birthers Beg the Question: Who is a “real” American?
Today, the President took a water hose to the Birther fire and released his official long form birth certificate. We have a certificate, even Michelle Bachmann admits this is over, let’s just put this behind us, right? That would be nice. As the President said in this morning’s remarks, we have a lot of work to do and this conversation is a big distraction:
We’ve got some enormous challenges out there. There are a lot of folks out there who are still looking for work. Everybody is still suffering under high gas prices. We’re going to have to make a series of very difficult decisions about how we invest in our future but also get a hold of our deficit and our debt — how do we do that in a balanced way.
And this is going to generate huge and serious debates, important debates. And there are going to be some fierce disagreements — and that’s good. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. And I am confident that the American people and America’s political leaders can come together in a bipartisan way and solve these problems. We always have.
But we’re not going to be able to do it if we are distracted. We’re not going to be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other. We’re not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts. We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.
I agree. Last Friday I made the same point on MSNBC. The problem is that the Birther movement isn’t just about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. The Birthers gave a name to anxiety about Obama’s race, his “otherness,” and his internal and domestic policies, and that does not end with the sharing of a certificate. As Steve Kornacki notes the questions about Obama’s birth only echo Conservative claims that Obama is not a “real” American:
While leaders on the right have shied away from overtly embracing birtherism (for fear of harming their party’s image with swing voters), they’ve also done nothing to discourage the conservative masses from believing the worst about the president. And the rhetoric they have embraced — claiming, for instance, that Obama rejects “American exceptionalism” — has often functioned to encourage conservatives to regard Obama as “the other,” a leader who is fundamentally different from “real” Americans and fundamentally anti-American in his values.
The sideshows and carnival barkers never go away. They just repurpose their call to be about anything from ending Medicare to changing the 14th amendment. For Obama, these questions about who is a “real” American will continue with every policy moves he makes. And for many of us, these questions are a reminder that whether we are an undocumented worker seeking a path to citizenship or an acculturated American-born patriot, in the eyes of some, we are permanently othered but “real” nonetheless.
Video: On MSNBC’s Jansing & Co. Talking Birthers
The Birthers and Paul Ryan’s budget…both symptomatic of GOP growing pains.
Upcoming TV: I’ll be on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor Thursday night around 8:45pm ET and on MSNBC’s Jansing & Co. at about 10am ET on Friday. Please tune in!
Thank God, Indeed!
There is something uplifting about know that no matter how many Tsunamis hit or how many rebellions fail, the last crawl at the bottom of our screen is never the last. In every pocket of the world, there are people planning for the future, plotting what’s next and moving forward in spite of all of the things that might hold them back. I skimmed the accompanying article and learned far too much about two people I don’t know and will never meet: he has trust issues, this is ”her happy ending.” Embue their special day with as much meaning as I might, the moral of the story is one that we can take to heart: in a world of constant chaos and turmoil, we all need a little distraction. Here’s to Kate the Great for allowing us to escape! (Cross-posted from Hostess Wars)
And, we’re back
Some updates: I’ll be on MSNBC every Friday on Jansing & Co., and on Hannity’s Great American Panel this Wednesday, and May 6th – so be sure to tune in. In the meanwhile, a recent clip from MSNBC (with yet another amazing opening screen freeze):
Today’s Tragedy & Where We Go From Here
I’m still trying to wrap my mind around what happened today. Already, there are too many fingers being pointed: Palin, Beck, the Tea Party, the border. I understand. It’s easier to leap to the next conversation about who is to blame than to sit with the unspeakable reality of what happened, but there must be a period of reflection before there can be a period of condemnation. Please trust that we will soon have a serious national conversation about how we got here, who is to blame and what needs to change. For now, let this be a reminder of what most of us agree on: this type of violence is unacceptable and un-American.
Tonight, I’ll pray for the five who have already left us, for those who are fighting for their lives, for Arizona, for us all.
Video: On MSNBC Jansing & Co. Talking State Budget Deficits
Happier: Sometimes, simple is complicated
A few readers have responded to our discussion of Happier
What about someone like myself who was not reared to believe Ben-Shahar’s claim that happiness is “the ultimate currency?” Even readinf this book five years after my initial reading, I am resistant to this concept. It sounds so selfish. What about helping others? Family? Security? Community? Ben-Shahar would likely argue that if each of those items is something of value then they likely trace back to my happiness, and what I really need to do is reorient my thinking. I’d agree. But reorientation takes time. It’s not simple.
In Chapter 5, “Setting Goals” Ben-Shahar examines self-concordant goals, goals that we choose rather than goals that we feel are imposed on us. As Ben-Shahar writes, “they stem from a desire to express part of herself rather than from the need to impress others.” (Note: for those of us who are people-pleasers, it may be less a question if impressing and more a question of pleasing.) For example, I had always expected that I would graduate from college, work for a few years and then go back to law school. To this day I can rattle off a million reasons why going back to law school would be a great idea: It would give me a good educational foundation for just about any profession I choose. It would give me added credibility. It would teach me to think in a new way. It would make my parents proud. But there was one big reason telling me not to do it: I absolutely did not want to. I t wasn’t self-concordant at all.
Happier: Setting Goals
To everyone who has been reading with me: thank you! For those of you who don’t know what’s going on or feel like you missed something, tune in here and then here.
Pat writes,
My favorite image from the book is in Chapter 5 “Setting Goals,” where we’re asked to imagine life as a journey in which walking along with a knapsack, we encounter a brick wall. We have to choose between turning around or throwing the knapsack over the wall, knowing that we’re now committed to somehow getting past the barrier. Now when I run into an obstacle, I imagine myself hurling the knapsack over. It’s very effective!
I love that Pat is reading this book as she’s the same person who inspired me to set the goal of actually executing this book club (thank you, Pat!) Here is a bit from Chapter 5 of Happier
Goals communicate, to ourselves and to others, the belief that we are capable of overcoming obstacles. Imagine your life as a journey. You are walking, knapsack on your back, making good progress, until suddenly you reach a brick wall that stands in the way of reaching your destination. What do you do? Do you turn around, avoid the challenge posed by the barrier? Or do you take the opposite approach and throw your knapsack over the wall, thus committing yourself to finding ways of getting through, around, or over the wall?
To me, the answer seems abundantly clear: neither. Instead, sit down, take a snack out of your knapsack and think hard about whether or not you are really committed. This is the way I respond when faced with the type of challenge that tests absolute commitment: I don’t run away, but I do think about it long enough that it actually makes it harder to throw my bag over the wall. The problem with this approach is that if I take the time to think about anything long enough, I can come up with enough reasons not to do it. It’s for people like me that this next passage is kind of key:
In 1879 Thomas Edison announced that he would publicly display the electric lightbulb by December 31, even though all his experiments had, to that point, failed. He threw his knapsack over the brick wall – the numerous challenges that he still faced – and on the last day of that year, there was light. In 1962, when John F. Kennedy declared to the world that the United States was going to land a man on the moon by the end of the decade, some of the metals necessary for the journey had not yet been invented, and the technology required for completing the journey was not available. But he threw his – and NASA’s – knapsack over the brick wall. Though making a verbal commitment, no matter how bold and how inspiring, does not ensure that we reach our destination, it does enhance the likelihood of success.
In other words, goals focus us and sometimes even make what might otherwise be impossible, possible. While someone like myself is sitting around, thinking about everything that could go wrong, the person who throws her knapsack over the wall accepts that things will go wrong but also accepts that she will simply work around those challenges. (As an aside: I have also heard that while it is important to articulate your goals to yourself, telling others can sometimes slow or stop the actualization of those goals.)
There is something about this approach that I still find unsettling, and it undoubtedly tied to the way I conceptualize goals (as an ends, not a means). Part of my resistance is that in my Type-A mind goals actually need to be accomplished or they’re not worth having. Ben-Shahar argues that people like me (heck, most people) need to reconceptualize goals as a means of attaining sustained happiness rather than an ends. The goal does not actually have to be accomplished in order to increase one’s happiness. With the right goal, the journey offers satisfaction and the completion is a bonus.
In professional coaching (which Pat and I are both training in) we focus on the learning that is achieved through experience. This, for me, has been a truly revolutionary concept. Good experience? What did you learn? Bad experience? Where’s the learning? Goal met? What did you learn? Goal abandoned? Same question. In Type-A world a goal that wasn’t met is considered a waste of time. But there are so many factors that can be responsible for why the goal was not met that if we actually take the time to examine those factors and learn from the experience, then we are able to set better goals and make better decisions moving forward. The challenge is having the discipline to actually take the time to reflect and analyze thoughtfully. With my coaching clients, I often recognize the same desire to either quickly dismiss or wallow in the frustration of an unfulfilled goal. This is part of why I find coaching so helpful – there is someone to slow us down and help us tease out the learning.
Lets Read Together: Happier
I’ve started reading Happier
Part of the reason I chose this book (in addition to wanting something apolitical, inspiring and fun) is because I, like many people, struggle with the question of what it means to be happy. As a young over-achiever, I subscribed to the notion that happiness was a destination. I would achieve a series of things (grades, diploma, good job, change the world) and then bam! happiness would arrive at my door wrapped in a beautiful ribbon (more on this later). Of course, life teaches most of us that this is not the way happiness actually works. I achieved plenty of things, enjoyed the high, and then once I came down off of it still found myself wondering what this life thing was all about.
I find the question “Are you happy?” irritating. What does that even mean? Am I happy the way I define happiness? Am I happy the way you define happiness? Is this “happy” you speak of a step above misery or is it the elation of a peak experience? More importantly: what if I’m not? Just as many conceptualize happiness as a destination, many think of unhappiness as a narrow dead end, possible but still difficult to back out of.
My annoyance with this question is addressed by Ben-Shahar in my favorite passage from Chapter 1:
”Am I happy?” is a closed question that suggests a binary approach to the pursuit of the good life: we are either happy or we are not. Happiness, according to this approach, is an end of a process, a finite and definable point that, when reached, signifies the termination of our pursuit. This point, however, does not exist, and clinging to the belief that it does will lead to dissatisfaction and frustration.
We can always be happier; no person experiences perfect bliss at all times and has nothing more to which he can aspire. Therefore, rather than asking myself whether I am happy or not, a more helpful question is, “How can I become happier?” This question acknowledges the nature of happiness and the fact that its pursuit is an ongoing process best represented by an infinite continuum, not by a finite point.
”How can I become happier?” It’s definitely a big question, but it is less daunting than “Am I happy?” That’s the way this whole book is framed. It’s not a yes/no question/answer that cedes will. Instead, it is all about personal choices and reflection.
A friend saw the book on my desk and teasingly called me “the number one purchaser of self-help books.” She’s right – I am eager to deal with this mid-life crisis head on. But Ben-Shahar is quick to dispell the notion that this book is for self-help. Instead, it is meant for reflection on what it means to be really, truly, sustainably happy. Yes, there are actionable items but as much as this book is about doing it is about a lasting shift in perspective. It is why five years since taking his class, I am still thinking about what I learned.
Marco Rubio
Predictably, the smart and ambitious Marco Rubio won last night’s race to become the next Senator from the great state of Florida. I, like many, recognize Rubio’s enormous talent and potential. However, my respect and our shared cultural ancestry aside, I think there are currently self-imposed limitations on his ability to become a national GOP figure capable of swinging the national Hispanic vote.
On MSNBC today, I caused quite a stir when I stated that Marco Rubio “perpetuates all the bad stereotypes of Cuban-Americans.”
You can read about how horrible I am here, here, here, here and here. As I explained (but will happily re-explain) I mean that his positions on Arizona’s controversial immigration law and Comprehensive Immigration Reform (a concept many Republicans have been behind as recently as 2006) reinforce the notion that because Cuban and Cuban-Americans’ experience of immigration is entangled with exile and protected status, they do not embrace the larger Latino immigrant experience. Of course, this is not true of most Cubans, but the perceived divide between Cubans and other Hispanics continues. I personally find it unsettling that someone who has benefited so greatly from immigration could back a broken system that denies others the same access and opportunity. That said, here is my admission: the “all the bad stereotypes” was an overstep. It’s really just “some bad stereotypes.” But the point remains that his policy stances on immigration are a dividing line for Hispanics.
I’m not a race-baiter, as some have claimed. Quite to the contrary – I think Marco Rubio has a tremendous opportunity to reach across ethnic and racial lines and build an interesting conservative coalition. But if he is going to be held up by the GOP as some great cafe con leche hope, then let’s be honest about how his current policy positions affect his ability to communicate with and galvanize the broader Latino community. Can he, as a VP candidate, win the Latino vote in the Southwest while not supporting CIR or the repeal of SB 1070? Poll after poll will tell you it is unlikely.
