April 27, 2009--Snowbirding: Sojourning Among Republicans

It is almost time for these Snowbirds to head north.

There are the expected things that I will miss—the sun rising in the window near where I do this typing; the migration of the Spinner Sharks and nesting Sea Turtles that track up our beach; the endless walks there at low tide; Rona’s swelling collection of seashell oddities; Baby Samantha who learned to walk while we were in residence; working with Doug and Charlotte on the daily Sudoku and crossword puzzle; Friday night’s fried oysters at Granger’s; the crawfish salad at the Old Dixie Seafood Shop; my homemade Moroccan Chicken, B’stila, and Chicken Scarpiello; all the books; three-days-a-week Pilates with the ever-demanding Kirstin; languid afternoon naps; sundowners with Suzie and Jack; drinks at 6:00 with Ticket, the 97 year-old matriarch who presides over this enchanted place; close-by cousins; brother Len and sister-in-law Holly in Miami; the Ladies of Forest Trace who, with my 101 year-old mother, have been my political and moral guide; and daily mornings over coffee at the Green Owl where the talk drifted from basketball madness to illegal immigration, from the Florida Marlin’s quick start and just as sudden collapse to the origins of the Cold War, from Tiger Woods’ return to competition to Obama’s first 100 days, and from local gossip to the fine distinctions between “harsh interrogation” and “torture.”

All enhanced by the endless wisdom and good cheer of Megan and Traci and Fatch and Vanessa and Jen and Dave and Mike and Troy and John and Ernst and Dad and Tommy and Bob and Tom and Joe and Harvey and Jack, yes relentlessly engaging Jack, and . . .

But then there are the unexpected things I will miss. None more unexpected than how much I have enjoyed, been provoked and stimulated by sojourning, by residing temporarily, among so many Republicans.

Back in my hermetically sealed downtown New York City universe, where everyone is self-proclaimedly above average, our infrequent disputes are about movies (“Do you really mean that you thought Slumdog was politically regressive?”), music (“I much prefer Jonathan Miller’s St. Mathew Passion at BAM to Nikolaus Harmoncourt’s serviceable version. Miller makes it so much more, how shall I put it, contemporary.”); theater (“I hated Raúl Esparza in Homecoming. How could you say he was better than that deliciously scabrous Ian McShane last year in London?”); or when the disagreements are political they involve simply nuances such as which Democrat we preferred during primary season. (Reggie: “It is so obvious--John Edwards is the authentic Populist.” Lisa: “But don’t you see that Hillary is the only one with real experience.” Me: “I don’t know about that, but shouldn’t we be seeking to present a new face to the world; don’t we need transformative ideas: don’t we therefore need Barack Obama?”)

Down here, when we discuss politics or political history we argue. We do more than disagree or dispute. And we do so vociferously, at times so heatedly that everyone at the counter in the Owl, like it or not, gets drawn in. At times we make such a ruckus that we have been with a smile told, since others are waiting for our seats so they too can have their coffee, to “Take it out onto the street.”

Which we then do, fully caffeinated, continuing to thrust and parry about taxes and spending, weapons of mass destruction and yellowcake uranium. Passersby on Atlantic Avenue must wonder how anyone could be so riled up so early in the morning as the clouds begin to dissipate in anticipation of the promise of another perfect day. “Be cool, man. Be cool,” some say, “Just let it happen.”

I don’t know if during these months I’ve convinced anyone of anything. Perhaps Harvey, one especially bright and well-informed fellow, has come away, on one issue at least, with a more nuanced (to my perspective) understanding of the nature, effectiveness, legality, and morality of torture or, as he prefers, “coercive interrogation techniques.” Just Saturday, I hope after losing some sleep over this maddening set of issues, I sensed the emergence within him of some personal doubt.

He will I hope forgive me when I attempt to quote him:

I still believe there are good coercive interrogation techniques; and if some deem it torture, well so be it. When pressed, however, would I hedge my bet and say maybe waterboarding or other coercive techniques aren't such a good idea, and, for example, could I conduct them myself? I've often asked myself could I actually pull a trigger to end someone’s life even during warfare or in self-defense? Usually the answer is yes, but when I think long and hard about it, the answer doesn't come so easily.

But, with this important piece of self-confessed angst aside, I do not know if Harvey and his cousin David and Bob and a number of others have simply overwhelmed me by their numerical superiority or made a few good-enough cases to teach me a thing or two.

But before saying more about the latter, here are a few things about which these Republicans are still dead wrong.

(You can see from this that I’ve learned from them to be less equivocating than in the past when I would have tended to say, “On the one hand blah, blah, blah; but on the other hand . . .” We progressives pride ourselves on seeing the many complex sides of issues and so we sound this wimpy way, even to ourselves. Except, of course, when it comes to those things about which we are indisputably right. Which includes most subjects.)

No, I still say, the Soviets were not the only bad guys during the Cold War. I remain convinced that the Soviets had reason to fear that we might attack them when we had a nuclear monopoly. So this history is more contested than quick slogans would suggest. I tell them to read any decent biography about Harry Truman to see that plans to do this very thing were seriously debated during his presidency.

I continue to contend that opinions that are not fact-based are just that—opinions. And not very good ones at that. You cannot say, for example, that there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 unless you can point me to credible sources to support that conclusion. I am still waiting to see those.

It cannot be seriously asserted that Barack Obama is a socialist until you can first tell me in detail what you mean by “socialist” and then show in what specific ways any of his policies and proposals, by that definition, are socialistic.

I will not be convinced that expanding tax cuts for the wealthy will actually stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit until I have an explanation about the effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. In both instances, I have evidence to share, the economy contracted and the deficit grew by record proportions.

It is not historical fact that government stimulation of the economy never worked when in fact it was effective here in the U.S. in the 1930s (the New Deal during its first years cut the unemployment rate in half) or in Japan during the 1980s where millions were put to work on massive infrastructure projects or, more controversially, shortly after Hitler came to power in Germany.

And no one has been able to convince me that recent immigrants, including those here illegally, do not want to work, only seek welfare benefits, and resist learning English. Though I have passed along data from numerous studies that show just the opposite and call for evidence that what they claim is evidence-based, they have not refuted what I circulated by sharing proof of their own to support their views.

And have crimes of violence declined here since people have been able to easily become licensed to carry concealed weapons; or have they increased, as the record shows, even as Florida citizens exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear assault weapons?

Then no one has been able to convince me with actual facts, though some who are less thoughtful complain passionately about being tired of “paying for things for people who refuse to work,” they and others who are more rational on the subject have been unable to make a persuasive argument that it is more cost-effective to pay for the uninsured to get their basic medical care through the use of high-cost emergency rooms than figure out a better national healthcare plan that is not, as they label it, “socialized medicine.”

So I haven’t made a lot of progress. Nor have they. We remain mainly dug in, they and I, but are still very much friends because though we have battled it has always been, mostly been, with respect and mutual affection.

But, I must admit, I have seen some shifting in the ideological tectonic plates that support my social and political views. Slight shifts. But to me welcome ones, though I do not want Harvey and his posse to get too excited by this confession. I’m still the Commie they have, I hope, come to like. Or at least tolerate.

I can see that we tend to agree about the need to fix our broken public schools and to do so requires more accountability throughout the entire system; that if we fail to do so we will continue to slip downward in the now more competitive globalized economy.

Though we do not agree about all the causes of global warming, and Al Gore remains the butt of some of their best jibes, we do agree that “man” does in fact contribute to its acceleration and that we had better do something about our role in it if we don’t want to see our grandchildren, who live inland here, to find themselves in 50 years with waterfront property.

And though they may draw more comfortably from Biblical sources than I, we agree that we all have a responsibility to “till and tend the garden” that is Earth. As a form of “creation care” for our planet, which after it was “created” was deemed, by God to be “good.”

So, as usual, things are less stereotypical then they can at first appear, especially when there are disagreements. If we can keep the heat down and avoid the ad hominem, not always easy, there are things we can stipulate, as in a trial where both sides agree to a series of facts before staking out their differing opinions and interpretations.

Perhaps more than anything else I learned during this sojourn is the lesson not to insist that only Harvey and his associates be required to argue from evidence--that I too am obligated to adhere to this, my own sanction. And in the privacy of these sunrise mornings (the sun right now is just fully above the horizon), after I too have lost sleep, I have been forced to learn that I also am sometimes prone (“sometimes” is as far as I am willing to go), I at times also put opinions before facts

Thus these struggles I will sorely miss when back in the safe confines of my New York breakfast place, Balthazar, where the only Republican we ever encountered was the young waiter Steve, who, by Election Day was almost ready to vote for Obama. Some Republican!

And he only worked there for three months before drifting off to graduate school at . . . a Jesuit university.