On Demand
Follow Up Friday: Your Word or Your Wallet
Friday, June 06, 2008
Mary Boyle, director of communications for Common Cause, and Michael Luo, New York Times political reporter covering the presidential campaign money beat, analyze the changing landscape of presidential campaign financing this election season and examines Obama and McCain's stance on reform.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
Obama should definitely not break his financial pledge. It will only give Republicans fodder for him 'flip-flopping' on his word. Besides, Obama is very gifted at raising money. If constituents need to see more TV ads to make up their minds between McCain and Obama - two of the most idealogically different candidates ever - that's a sad commentary on the intelligence of our populace. At this point, his steadfast word is much more important.
What is really sad about the intelligence of the populace is that the democratic party has nominated a Muslim, White-Hating canditate.
#2, that's incorrect, at least the 'Muslim' part. The second part is your opinion, I guess. You are from Texas, I see?
Hearing Rangel say that Obama should break his word in order to win was repulsive. I was, honestly, disgusted. Thanks for taking this on.
PLEASE before asking if Obama should break his word, can you clarify IF he gave his word, and if he did, WHAT he gave his word about exactly?
I been reading/hearing about this for some time but still don't know what the truth is.
Thank you.
Richard @ 2, aside from being completely wrong, why would that be bad if it were true?
We've had minority-hating christians so it only seems fair to try it the other way.
I only get my information from Obama's associations and speeches.
I disagree with you Mark (on #1 not on #3). Obama should not keep his pledge. If he doesn't keep it, then he can drown the McCain and GOP in cash and cruise to the presidency. And, once there, he can turn around and offer a "boon" to the GOP by fixing campaign finance laws finally. The GOP would be more likely to go for a campaign finance reform if they are getting beaten in the fund raising race.
The flip-flopping won't get much traction since McCain has already flip-flopped on most of his "independent" points to get in line with the conservative Republican rhetoric: immigration, tax cuts, gas prices, veteran benefits, etc.
Richard, please.
Brian, this would be a good issue to come back to when you do your 30 issues in 30 days.
Ok, I heard that Mr. Lehrer, How can you conflate a statement Mr. Obama made to 'agree to aggressively persue' with making a pledge or promise TO accept public financing? Please stop insinuating Mr. Obama has broken his word.
After hearing the Obama quote, I expect Obama to press McCain for a harsher definition of publicly financed general election campaign than McCain could possibly agree to. Then, he can declare that he aggressively pursued it, that McCain wouldn't accept it, and that he, Obama, will continue with his current campaign fund-raising.
I'm an obama supporter and I think obama should take public financing and run with mccain on this. it'd be a great show of unity.
The goal of campaign finance is to keep big money out of the elections and prevent the candidate from being beholden to big interests to the detriment of voters.
But when then average contribution is under $100, that means Obama is "beholden" to the voters and not corporate interests.
Because the average is so low and that there are so many contributers, I am not worried because it means beholden to voter/contributers, not corparate/contributers.
I love Rangel's candor. And he is right. Do you think this is a game, like basketball or chess? This is a fight for the greatest power in the world and to do something that would greatly benefit your opponent, when you don't have to, would be very un-political.
Don't get me wrong, I hate money in politics. But this is a no-brainer, especially since all the "bad" money in politics goes to Repugs to carry out their lobbyist agenda, plundering the treasury for their corporate cronies. Obama is raising $30 million a month on the internet, no strings attached.
Obama should keep his word and retain his integrity. The purpose of these rules is to level the playing field rather than letting money determine the election outcome. However, it is worth noting that while traditionally fundraising can make candidates beholden to special interests because they come from large donors who expect something in return, Obama's massive fundraising was largely grass-roots and came from mostly small donors and thus his fundraising success does reflect something about his support among the populace.
To clarify or correct my comments in #14: A lot of that bad money goes to Dems, too, the other wing of the corporate party, but most of Obama's is coming in small donations from citizen supporters, not big money lobbyist contributors.
OK Richard,
exactly what did Obama say that convinced you he was a white hating Muslim? Or was this just a fantasy or a dream you had?
My main worry is that if Osama, oops, I mean Obama, is elected. He could call for a Jihad which would make September 11, 2001 look like a car wreck.
I hate to resort to name-calling, but Richard is truly an ignoramus and a bigot. He certainly does not let facts get in the way of his opinions.
Can someone talk about that little box at the end of your tax return where you can designate $1 to presidential campaigns? Does that go to "public financing?"
I agree with the female caller who says the onus should not be placed on the individual.
I am convinced he is a Muslim because his pastor at the United Church of Christ is controversial.
wow, hypocritical liberals, what a surprise. Would it be ok if the "other side" changed their mind on ethical issues?
It is best not to respond to comments that are far afield from reality, that are designed to provoke a response with their outrageousness.
It is quite sad that we eschew and loathe republicans when they would "buy" elections, but now that Obama has an advantage in fund raising, we say that it's important for us to win. Very hypocritical to say the least.
Is there no end to your pointless poitical outgassing. You've treated your listeners to an endless array of "experts", "commentaters", "pundits" and general gasbags, both home grown WNYCers and imported for the occasion, with NOTHING to say and endelsss pointless speculation to opine. I can't turn it off fast enough. Are you so puffed up that you believe this waste of time and electricity is any different from the countless cable twits? No wonder your guest hosts (no matter who) are such a relief. Man, nothing to say? - Let soeone else do it better, or just turn off the transmitter for a bit, sav the electricity.
Hahaha,
Liberal lairs strike again! Do what suits you here and now,right? You are exposed again. Read Peter Schweizer's new book you hypocrites:
Makers and Takers: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic than liberals.
shc #20 - It is $3 and yes that is the money that goes to public financing of presidential campaigns.
To 14, no, I don't think this is a game.
That is why keeping his word is essential. We have a President who is dishonest now. It has not benefited us, and I am tired of the dishonesty in our government.
If there is a way for Obama to take the individual money without breaking his word, fine. But otherwise, I don't want to vote for a liar and America does not need another one.
Democrats, Republicans - twiddle dee dum & twiddle dee dee
all part of the corporate political industrial complex
Rangel believes the ends justify the means ---
so much for all the blather about "change"
If Obama "changes" on this - guess he isn't the honest liberal messiah after all
RAI, your name calling just supports your lack of intelligence.
I think that the public financing system should be updated. The amount of money is too small for today's campaigns. It seems that if the goal is to get corporate interests out of the game but to encourage small donors that it is inconsitant to bar them from contributing.
We need to re-examine the law and write it in a more focused intelligent way. It has too many loopholes
Obama should break his word. His donors are all small donors, and he is thus really representative of their democratic powers. He's beholden to them, and has the onus of winning. A show of honesty for honesty's sake for McCain would be a worthless gesture.
A complete picture of who donates to Obama includes exactly who these donors are. Most of them are regular citizens taken by Obama’s message who give small amounts less than the 200 dollar level. However some have given the maximum amount of 2,300. Through March 2008, Obama has managed to raise $240,175,070. Of that total 231,948,750 is for primary use. 225,597,295 has been raised through individual donations. The highly publicized donations from those giving $200 or less amount to 101,146,213 or 65% of Obama’s total money raised. Donors who have maxed out to 2,300 for the primaries have given 46,122,367, 20% of total individual contributions.
Did Brian just suggest an equivalency between moveon.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Seems a bit of a stretch.
Has anyone brought up McCain's trying to weasel out of a decision on financing? He is the "Straight Shooter" isn't he?
The Republicans are the slimiest, sleaziest campaigners as exemplified by Karl Rove and Lee Atwater. They stole it in 2000 and now you want to unilaterally disarm on principle? And when that principle was NOT based on legions of internet supporters raising hundreds of millions of dollars but on the risk of big money lobbyists influencing the campaign.
Obama better back out of this so-called pledge which is pure inside baseball that voters just don't seem to care about.
#2 Richard from Texas is beneath our responses. Can't change a bigot, but you sure can ignore them.
As for Obama, the irony is pledging to accept public funds is almost less democratic than Obama's private fundraising efforts. Having a million people give ten dollars better represents the will of the people than having public funds.
Money is the root of all political evil in our 'system'. Having just seen RECOUNT that this country permits patisan operatives to administer elections, ie Katherine Harris (and Blackwell in Ohio 2004)I think the election system needs reform from top to bottom. ANd the electoral college makes citizens (and issues) who does not live in a 'close' battleground state to be totally ignored by all.
Ah Dubya - your votes for Bush helped needlessly kill thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Tell me - does the blood come off your hands easily, or do you have to use like, Lava?
I agree with the comment on the system being broken. I wonder why they haven't implemented a simple system like several Latin American countries that allows donations from private people, however, they have a limit on how much each candidate can raise. There is a comission that monitors the campaign donations and that they do not exceed their limit. That way everybody has the same amount of money if they manage to raise it. Then you would be looking at the candidates from who they are and not from HOW MUCH THEY HAVE TO MAKE US BELIEVE WHO THEY ARE.
LOL
When Rangel is open about his lies and hypocrisy -
Chris O says he "love Rangel's candor."
I hope Obama maintains his integrity -- but watch carefully -- and listen to his supporters ---
these guys are just as sleazy as the Republicans
all for themselves --- don't care a whit about the "sheeple"
the "sheeple" are just a stepping stone for these politicians to grab power
OK Richard,
once again I ask about your intelligence, exactly what did Obama say that convinced you he was a white hating Muslim? It’s a pretty simple question.
Re: Senator Obama's remarks: More importantly than the question at hand -- In his speech this week after clinching the nomination, during his congratulatory remarks re: Hilary Clinton, he said that when UNIVERSAL health care came to this country it would be because Hilary Clinton would be in the center of it all. Was this a change in stance re: Universal health care which is long overdue in America, or just lip service --- as during his speech yesterday, he stood at a podium with a sign reading AFFORDABLE health care. Was thisd his way of recanting on his prior statement, or was he previously saying SHE would make UNIVERSAL possible, but he would only go for AFFORDABLE -- and -- what does affordable mean? Affordable to who?
Ethics? Democrats?
Geez- sounds like a contradiction in terms!
I'm glad to see that 'Democrats' can be- well sort of 'flexible' when it comes to their 'ethics' <-(such as they are!)
What a joke!
But again- it's unfortunate that the 'joke' is on the American electorate!
#38 Eric, I couldn't agree more. Fundraising is an important aspect of our political system...but 230 some years into this democracy, you think we would have standardized how we count votes. Let's start at the most basic place with our electoral problems.
LVK...that's laughable...does the book explain the Washington page scandal, Larry Craig's footsy, the double life of the republican rep from Staten Island. You must be kidding me.
OBAMA BAND LOBBYIST & PAC MONEY FROM THE DNC. If McCain would also do the same for the RNC then it might make sense but right now McCain is doing $100K a plate fundraisers where they are bundling the limits from the RNC State Parties and the Presidential limits.
#36 - Chris O
lol
"Obama better back out of this so-called pledge which is pure inside baseball that voters just don't seem to care about."
Thanks Chris O for telling us when Obama should lie and what the little people seem to care about.
I don't think the Republicans have a monopoly on ruthless & sleazy operatives who will lie to
grab power.
Did you train under Rove/Atwater?
what about free access to the public airwaves
I watched so many of his past speeches, his pastors ranting and other news articles about him last night, I do not remember which exact one indicated he is Muslim. He definately grew up with a Muslim father and teaching for over 20 years. One other thing that does noe endear me to him is letting his wife go public with a comment that she "Finally respects the U.S." since her husband is a forerunner.
McCain is having a get together in NY of all places. It's only %28500.00 to get in. Does that sound like public financing? Check it out:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Calendar/Detail.aspx?guid=87c97097-9e1d-4a90-b86f-f0bfcbe01bff
to Larry Conroy, re: universal vs affordable healthcare. Answer: are you stupid?
Barak Obama's campaign has heavily criticized Clinton for supposedly "breaking her pledge" that Florida and Michigan voters wouldn't count. Now that he has won, he would seem awfully hypocritical to break his own pledge to accept public financing. Given his lack of a voting record, his word counts for a lot with voters. He breaks it at his peril.
Of course he shouldn't keep his word.
All efforts legal and illegal should be made to ensure McCain does not become president.
Politicians flip flop on issues all the time.
People flip flop on issues all the time.
What is the big deal?
Richard: are you sure it wasn't something you saw in a dream? Don't tell me you don't dream about how much of a whitey-hating muslim babykiller all black people are.
He should honor his word, I think that's pretty irrefutable. He can and will win in November, as he's simply a better campaigner than McCain. He has a better staff, a clearer message, and runs a tighter ship. Also, just wait until we get these two speaking head-to-head: McCain will look like a man who wandered out of his nursing home and isn't sure what year it is. Obama doesn't need private fundraising to win this...it's just sad that we'll be denied the pleasure of watching the most masterful fundraiser of his time work.
Not to worry-
America in NOT going to elect Michelle O-Ba-Ma to be the 'First Lady' of the United States of America!! (Geez- the thought alone sets my hair standing on end!)
Richard,
Can’t remember what he said? How convenient… So I was right, the idea of Obama being a white hating Muslim was just a dream or fantasy you had. Back up your facts before you make truly stupid useless comments that make you look like an ass…
#34 chris f. depends on your point of view.
#38 I agree completely but not holding my breath.
Dems are opening themselves to some very deserved ridicule by Reps.
Look Wilford, I am not a racist of any kind. It definately sounds like Obama is though.
Obama should stand by his word -- if he wants "change we can believe in" to be something more than a Madison avenue huckster's jingle, he should stick with his commitment & not be sleazy.
Larry Conway #43, great point. He has pandered outrageously on this issue and has been given a pass.
To Steve.
Um, I am a registered Democrat since I've been able to vote. I've been longing for a candidate who compels as Robert Kennedy did and Obama did at first. His true colors are beginning to show. I'm not looking for a whatever it takes to win president. Ethics mean a lot to me. If he should break his pledge, wouldn't you feel a little disappointed and perhaps he is no different than what we consider Republican tactics.
So Steve, you make a compelling statement fit for an Onion article and I love the drama of the lava comment, but I feel bad for your wife if you are married, or your husband / partner.
Richard, I apologize. You have convinced me that you are not a racist. Off into the woods I go to ruminate on my misguided ways that've lead me to such a falacious conclusion.
Re: poster 43 and 61. Obama believes that by making health insurance affordable, universal health care would be attained. At least that's his talking point. Clinton disputes this pointing out that some people will elect not to have insurance even if it's affordable. Obama thinks this would not be a big problem and opposes the mandate that Clinton says is necessary to achieve true universality. The primary difference between their plans is that Clinton supported a mandate that everyone must buy health insurance, while Obama only supports a mandate that people must buy insurance for their children.
Richard...on what grounds do you say that Obama is a racist? Where is your argument? Because of something Reverend Wright said? Haven't you been associated with someone who said something YOU DIDN'T agree with? Hell, you're cavorting online with a bunch of New Yawk lib'rals right now...would you like to be associated with us? ON WHAT GROUNDS IS OBAMA RACIST?
i knew the right wing loons would come out of the woodwork once the primary was over. but americans are smarter, i hope, than to fall pray to the agents of intolerance
RICHARD: Moreover, your thesis is that he's a Muslim and a racist...and your evidence is his CHRISTIAN PREACHER! So the only parts he buys are the stuff about race, not the stuff about Jesus being the son of God?
Dan #64, the principal problem with the BHO health plan is that it will lead very quickly to adverse selection. HRC's plan has weaknesses too, but his plan is weaker.
Jesse #56: you seem to be obsessed with Michelle Obama. Do you have a crush on her?
Winning is the deal. Obama shouldn't stick to his financial pledge because the reason McCain is insisting on, is because he can't raise as much money as Obama. He is a lousy fund raiser.
That's also why he is suggesting town halls meetings, because he can't read a telepronpter.
MC#68: Who doesn't have a crush on Michelle Obama? How could you not?
Agreed Zak #70. She is awesome.
#71
It is impossible not to notice... no matter how many Jackie O.-style shifts Michelle Obama puts on, she is still really tall and strong and curvy and ultimately way too sensual-looking for most people. On top of that, she's a sensual-looking black woman. This is no doubt going to get her detractors riled up, and I'm not looking forward to it. but there are other bigger hurdles ahead. I just hope she can play sweet and stupid to avoid any more controversy. I feel bad for her.
#67 Zak: I guess you heard Rev. Wright's sermon on Jesus' message of hope and love? Where? Because nothing of Rev. Wright's tone says Christian man to me. Leftist have an irrational, radical hatred for this country, the way it is now, and the freedom it provides for her citizens and millions of others around the world! Michelle Obama has, until now, never been proud of this country? She is the typical self-centered leftist like Barack Obama might same I am the "typical white person". She is not happy until she gets what she wants.
eva #72,
I think she's more than up to it and I don't see the Jackie O shifting. She is smart, down to earth and does not suffer fools. I don't want her to play sweet or stupid - she is neither. I want her to be herself because I am tired of the whole idea of the "right" woman or the "right" black person (or gay person or Jewish person or Muslim or whatever).
lvk
i wonder what u think about the USA support of dictors around the world?
I hear you. Check her wardrobe, she's smartly co-opting parts of Jackie O's style book. (What American woman in the public light doesn't?) She makes it look better and, she can't help it, a lot sexier, thanks to an athletic build.
But all beside the point...I know you're tired of the "right" idea, but the fact is we've got an election to win, and Michelle has every reason to lay low, which she has been (probably quite happily) doing. I think the model for this was "Mrs." Dean, who was too busy with her medical practice to notice much in Howard's campaign. This is as it should be - we're electing the candidate, not the spouse.
eva,
Hmm, I try not to make a practice of checking the wardrobe, but I have to admit that purple dress was smashing. She is much sexier than Jackie.
If she wants to stay in the background that is her choice. But if he is really interested in unity and people being free to live up to their potential he should let her make that call, since it is (as it should be) him we are electing, not her. Dean's spouse chose to keep on with her medical practice, Michelle O chose to take a leave of absence. Either is OK with me.
mc,
totally agreed on the choice bit. I think with her daughters at such a young age, and her own career, she probably has bigger priorities than campaigning. And given the crap they're going to fling at her, I think she's both wise and practical to lay low. (Leave of absence is same thing to me.) There's no subtle power in her looks; she's savvy and probably understands that simply appearing in public, being her shy self (she is somewhat reticent in tv interviews) is sufficient. As the first black potential first lady, she well knows that anything that comes out of her mouth is subject to scrutiny times 1000.
Having said that, I think she's going to make a great first lady. From everything I've read about Obama, he's made a real effort to shield his wife and daughters from the campaign. Somebody described it as a naive hope that he could shield them from the campaign. I'm sure that they reached a decision jointly, which shows they both care about the family.
eva,
More like scrutiny x 1,000,000. I actually don't find her reticent on TV, I find her forthright and honest and she doesn't engage in hyperbole which I really appreciate. She clearly has her daughters' interests as her top priority; she has made that clear. He is not going to be able to shield her but I am not worried about her. She'll be fine.
mc,
I saw her interviewed on tv, I kept thinking, "sit up" because she clearly wasn't comfortable (I think it was the Daily Show - which loves her.) She normally has great posture, but she was hunched over throughout the interview and really seemed uncomfortable. It made me more convinced of what a genuine person she is. But that lack of comfort corresponded, sanely, to avoiding the spotlight, esp. after her remarks about "proud of my country" were broadcast ad nauseum.
This gets back to the issue of how much the tech and media landscape has changed and how it influenced this campaign. Beschloss had remarked on it last Tuesday. Obama benefited in part from watching the media mistakes the Clintons made earlier. Like Schwarz. during his CA gov. campaign, Obama realized the value of not overtalking, and I think Michelle gets that too. I was so aggravated with Schw. because I didn't know where he stood on the issues - but that was the secret to his win, which, at that time, only a media person would "get". That's - perversely - what the omnipresent media, youtube, etc has generated.
eva,
I didn't see the Daily Show interview but I did see a CNN interview shortly after the second time the Wright stuff hit the fan. From my perspective it looked like CNN was giving Obama a huge assist, but we don;t have to go there. She was great, not hunching at all, didn't look uncomfortable, just very direct.
Not familiar with Beschloss's comments but I think that the media is still very in love with Obama and I am sort of waiting for the other shoe to drop. I am disgusted with pious types like Anderson Cooper who seem to rush to show everyone how "not racist" they are. I remain convinced that as soon as they are confronted by someone abrasive (like Wright) they will totally let the racist side fly (they did).
I don't live in CA, just looking over at it from here, but it seemed to me that A Schwartz's positions changed. Maybe, (God forbid!) he actually listened to the people?
mc,
yeah, I agree that Schwarz's positions changed. Either he actually listened to us, or he was always going to go that way, and the "tough guy" who got elected was just an act in order to win. Know what I mean? I mean, he's been married to a Kennedy for 20 yrs. or so? 15? He's also an actor, so it's not such a stretch(not that pols aren't actors.)
I actually came to support Obama in spite of his being black. When my (non-white) mother and I were looking at the candidates, we liked Edwards, in part because he's white and thereby electable. But then it was just left btwn Obama and Hillary. For both my mom (a war refugee) and myself, Hillary's war vote, and probably more so her refusal to admit it was a mistake, was a deal-breaker. I think that we also distrusted what Mom calls the empress-dowager effect. To her, this country represents the opportunity to make it without a man, and Hillary didn't project that for her (or for me.)
eva,
Wow. Thanks for that. It puts your passion into context. I completely respect anyone who can't forgive HRC for the war vote. For me, when the choice was between her and BHO I cam to a different conclusion because he was neutralized on the war and I was interested in their domestic policies. What is interesting is how our experiences affect our perspective. Without revealing too much about my identity I will tell you that a close member of my family was directly and unwillingly involved with one of the most traumatic events in our history. My native suspicion of any politician and the media probably goes to the fact that members of my family are STILL being defamed and smeared. As a result, I am very suspicious of appearances and more interested in measurable facts, plus explicit statements. If it's not asking too much: which war was you mother a refugee from?
eva,
Wow. Thanks for that. It puts your passion into context. I completely respect anyone who can't forgive HRC for the war vote. For me, when the choice was between her and BHO I cam to a different conclusion because he was neutralized on the war and I was interested in their domestic policies. What is interesting is how our experiences affect our perspective. Without revealing too much about my identity I will tell you that a close member of my family was directly and unwillingly involved with one of the most traumatic events in our history. My native suspicion of any politician and the media probably goes to the fact that members of my family are STILL being defamed and smeared. As a result, I am very suspicious of appearances and more interested in measurable facts, plus explicit statements. If it's not asking too much: which war was your mother a refugee from?
mc,
I'm sorry to hear about your experience. I can't imagine. That must be extremely painful. I hear you on the media.
My mom is a WWII survivor, Asia Pacific Theater. She's really still very damaged from that experience, and my family suffered because of it. That's why I like Leonard Lopate's brother's book about growing up with concentration camp survivors. War damages people sometimes irreconcilably.
She and I have had a lot of arguments about WWII, I feel she's not grateful to this country. But she's so angry about a later war - Vietnam. We lost an uncle in the Vietnam conflict, and my dad sullenly served (which infuriated mom) and it pretty much divided the family into two camps, just as it did the country. Moving up to the present, I found, sadly, that my mom was right in hating war, esp. with regard to the Iraq situation.
I admit a lot of my anger is fueled by these dual experiences - a legacy of war, and guilt about not speaking up more when it mattered. I should have known better. I was too quiet.
This thought just occurred to me, though: Virtually every partisan Republican (and McCain supporter) in the country thinks Obama should accept public financing - 'nuff said.
I love to see republicans promoting public financing of elections vs. private, haha
And speaking of relative irrelevancies: Michelle Obama is a fine woman: smart, strong and sexy.
eva,
I hear you on family divisions and I really hear you about war damage. In what way do you feel she is not grateful enough to the US? Did your dad feel he owed it to the country to serve in Vietnam? There were people in my community who served time in jail rather than to go. Your mom is right about hating war, I just think that it solves nothing.
What do you think you could have contributed if you had been able to speak up before you did? ARe you giving yourself a break for maybe being too young at the time?
mc,
my dad was drafted as a doctor/researcher, I think he didn't feel he could get out without losing his medical license, but I could be wrong. He ended up being assigned to do bio warfare research. It was, you can imagine, straight poison for the marriage. My parents were both in the sciences, worked really hard for it, they felt they could neither go backward nor forward once he was drafted.
I mean I should have spoken up against the Iraq invasion more. As for Vietnam, god, what a mess. I can't even get into that. but if the country had come to terms with the Vietnam conflict, I really believe there'd have been no Iraq invasion.
about gratitude:
my mother left what was probably the most misogynistic culture on planet earth. Women could be condemned to death by their husbands for minor infractions. like getting old. or not having sons. or simply falling out of favor. Short of creating her, her culture did absolutely NOTHING for her.
She came to this country, was given citizenship, went to magnet public schools, went to the best university(paid for by the state scholarship program), married into a white family that worshipped the ground she walked on, led a life of leisurely scholarship, and has made a small fortune. But it's still like "this racist, war-mongering country." I just think you gotta acknowledge the good with the bad.
eva,
How horrible for your dad. He might have been right about the license, I don't really know. My father was able to secure a Conscientious Objector status, but that was not easy to do. He had been a member of a Quaker meeting for a long time and that helped document it. He performed alternative service at a state mental institution near by.
I was on the streets protesting the Iraq invasion before it actually started. I felt, however as though I had to mute my opposition at work because the views of the people around me were not really clear and I had already experience a sting when I spoke up too forcefully. So I would sneak out, attend a demonstration and then sneak back in.
I think the Vietnam conflict still resonates in an almost unconscious way for many people. The fact that there was a draft was terribly traumatic for many people and the American body count, well, as you said, let's not go there.
mc,
So you have Quaker roots? I'm proud that you got out there, and you were smart to keep it to yourself. I got into so much trouble at work for saying benign things like:
"what do you mean collateral damage?"
I worked in the financial sector, it was very personal to the sector. We had Cantor Fitz. people using our office because their office was obliterated. Every day I went to work it was "towel-head" this, or "sand n*&^er" that. But these people didn't serve. My friends upstate were being stoplossed. It was surreal.
eva,
I see what you mean vis a vis gratitude. It's not about what the US did in her country during the war but about what happened after she got here. I agree with you about the good and the bad about this country. I think that liberals (I hate labels but oh well) get into this lockstep thinking and sometimes forget that it is not all bad. Of course conservatives are lockstep too. It is hard for me to be patient about that as you have probably gathered by now. It seems to me that people are unwilling to let facts cloud their thinking when the facts don't conform to the narrative already in their heads. I also think that people willfully refuse to really consider other people's point of view. I try very hard not to do that even when it is being done to me.
I am so sorry your parents are casualties of war in their way.
mc,
I often think of the Japanese and the German soldiers. They were really brainwashed. I think one of the weird things is that in trying to "fix" themselves, the Germans didn't give credit to how innocent people get turned into monsters.
I do think my dad should have taken a stand. I suspect he thinks so, too, and it's a source of conflict for him.
At least you were out protesting! I really feel that I missed an opportunity. And I really feel like I can't judge civilians in other countries who let these things happened. There should have been tens of millions of mc's out on the street protesting. Instead there were tens of millions of people like me, sitting in their offices, saying, "well, maybe I'm wrong to be against the invasion."
eva,
Yeah, you were really in the thick of it. It was just awful wasn't it? Like we had all lost our minds. I was working at that time in Brighten Beach with the Pakistani immigrant population there and I was really worried some awful hate crime would happen to them.
But I also had bad experiences when I left NYC for points west and ran into my old friends from home. All they would talk about was how the WTC was just this financial symbol and how awful the US foreign policy was. Agreed. But I needed them to ask me if I was OK. Because I was ringside at this attack and my friends and neighbors burned up and this atrocity had happened to us. It was as if it didn't count when it happened to Americans.
I felt that we just joined the larger world community that many people the world over experience this kind of assault every day.
The Quaker roots are still very active. What I think our community has to watch for is not feeling too morally superior. Quakers are supposed to avoid "sowing the seeds of war." This is something we have to watch out for in our homes and with our neighbors, not just in the larger world.
mc,
"But I needed them to ask me if I was OK."
I so hear you. My family was so obsessed with their old Vietnam divide - taking the conservative or the liberal side - that they forgot they had a niece in New York who, last they knew, worked in downtown New York. I had to call them a week later to say, "uh, I'm okay. Not that it matters! haha!"
And I'm so with you about us joining the larger world community that day. Frankly, I'd do anything to go back to pre-9.11.
eva,
Re: protest, there are lots of ways to protest and the war is just as wrong now as it was then.
The brainwashing thing is really scary isn't it? We hear all the time about ordinary people who do these sadistic things and I can't help thinking that they are not that different form me. I guess that's why I resist party lines and anything that sounds like orthodoxy. The left can be just as tyrannical as the right (and just as racist, sexist, homophobic etc.).
It must be painful to be your dad.
mc,
last thing, then I'll let you go:
at the tasti D-lite on E. 86th and lex, there was a muslim girl, who was clearly being harassed/treated meanly by the upper east siders in the weeks after 9.11
One day I went in there, she looked like she was about to cry. I said, "How ARE you? Are you doing okay?" That was it, she just burst into tears and couldn't stop. She spent about ten minutes just repeating the things people had been saying to her, to her face. Beautiful young woman, barely five feet tall, and they're treating her like an terrorist. So, yeah, I think the media is to blame in part for that. I actually cried when Bush suggested we accompany our Muslim neighbors to the supermarket. My own neighbors in Queens were getting harassed on a daily basis, and if my nextdoor neighbors weren't home by 10, I sat on the stoop until they got in. I felt so, so guilty about what they were going through, and my inability to protect them in any way.
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
1 | 2 | Next | Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.