However, I've written to Congress, newspapers, and other blogs. I do not want to spend much time doing this, but I'd like to get a few ideas out in the open.
I've always had an interest in Politics. These times are especially challenging.
Back in September 2006, I began my letter writing, which helped me focus and clarify my views. My first set of letters concerned Al-Qaeda. We've been trying to kill Osama for several years now, yet his organization appeared to be growing. I had seen a CNN special on him. Why, I thought, is this guy getting so much press coverage? Doesn't this attention help him? Shouldn't his views be challenged openly?
At the same time, right after the Israeli-Hizbullah war, I was reading Tom Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jerusalem". The amazing thing I got out of this book, which was written in the 1980's, was how History repeats itself. Just read the book and substitute Hizbullah for PLO. It's deja vu!
I then had a thought. Can we beat Al-Qaeda by forcing them into an open debate with moderates? I started to write my thoughts in the form of a letter to Mr. Friedman (it started with "Instead of killing Osama, why don't we debate him?"). Problem is, "who are the moderates"?
On September 10, 2006, I went to a rally called the Unity Walk. We had speakers from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The start of the event, held in a D.C synagogue, had an unbelievable variety of people of different cultures. The theme was peaceful coexistence and a celebration of diversity. I spoke briefly with Dr. Akbar Ahmed, a Muslim diplomat from Pakistan and a University Professor (one of the speakers).
On my way home, I realized "here's the moderate I'm looking for". So I finished up my letter and asked Dr. Ahmed's opinion (and even asked if he could be the spokesman). He relayed that I should send it to Friedman. So I did, via the NY Times.
I didn't hear back, but on September 29th, Tom Friedman wrote a Times column called "Islam and the Pope". One of the things it stated was that if internal debate happened in Islam, the moderates would win. It was a great article, and it inspired me to write a letter to the Editor, which was published on October 2, 2006 (Yom Kippur, perhaps ironically). This is what my letter (edited a bit by the Times) said:
To the Editor:
I agree with Thomas L. Friedman's views on Islam's leadership (''Islam and the Pope,'' column, Sept. 29). But tones of belligerence, fear, hate and blame are not confined to one religion or nationality. We need changes in leadership around the world and in media coverage.
We need people from all countries and faiths who can promote a compassionate, moderate view that can recognize the injustices in this world and promote an alternate path to their resolution. This is not unprecedented (think Nelson Mandela).
Television and radio programs worldwide are exploitive and feed the flames. While it is allowed in a free society to air extremist views, the media should give as much time to the moderates. Why does the media show Osama bin Laden's tapes, for example, without an immediate rebuttal or debate of his words?
The prevailing winds are blowing in a dangerous direction and need to change.
With this publication, I began to write much more extensively about leadership and media.
(A quick afternote: The editors took out my 2 last sentences. What I had was "The prevaling winds are blowing in a dangerous direction and need to change. Perhaps my views are naive. But are our current ways working"? I mention this because of the charge of naiviete on Senator Obama's policies. More on this later)
I tried to make sure that my themes were universal. Change was needed in many nations and Religions. I had stated in my letter to Friedman that we've had great leaders and role models in the 1990's but horrible ones since.
A few days later, I saw an article in Washingtonian Magazine about Barack Obama. It was speculating that he might run for President, but his wife Michelle was hedging. But what caught my eye was that the audio version of his autobiography "Dreams From My Father" (originally written in the mid-90's) had won a Grammy. Wow, what could be so good about it? I got a copy of the CD to find out.
On October 11th, the day Corey Lidle flew his plane into a building in Manhattan, I flew to White Plains NY on business. During my flight, I began to listen to the CD. I understood quickly why it won the award. It was gripping and moving. It not only told stories, it had messages.
One segment that stood out to me in particular was his discussion of "Nationalism", in this case the views of the Nation of Islam (which Minister Louis Farrakan heads). Mr. Obama showed how narrow-minded some of their views were - their scapegoating of other races and religions, their desire to uplift one group by demonizing another. This fit into my viewpoints of the failed leadership we've had in the world recently, whether it be Ahmadinejad, Bush, Saddam, Bin Laden, Arafat, or Sharon (and many others) . There are many groups in the world who use this tactic. They need to be exposed for what they are. Later, via his pastor's sermon "The Audacity of Hope", Obama's alternate view of the universality of our problems, hopes, and solutions was stated.
I wrote a short review of "Dreams" on Amazon a few weeks later mentioning my above reactions (I called it "An Important Book to Listen To"). At that point Obama did not decide on his candidacy, so I stated that whatever his ambitions are, his voice needed to be heard as he would make a terrific role model.
(See http://www.amazon.com/review/R3RDY3AT7V8B7F/ref=cm_srch_res_rtr_alt_1 for the full review)
A few weeks later, a friend of mine told me of an interesting new book called "The Faith Club". It was written by 3 women, one Muslim (Palestinian), one Christian, one Jewish, chronicalling their discussions on their faiths, fears, hopes and the Middle East issues. This book, in its approach to dialogue, moved me as well, and I have been recommending it to others. The book allowed me to see things from others' viewpoints.
I expanded my letter writing. I attended a pro-Jim Webb rally in Alexandria, and tried to personally hand my letters to Mr. Webb and President Clinton. I also wrote other letters to newspapers, the government of Iran (protesting the Holocaust conference, stating that my mother's words, one of a Holcaust survivor, is instantly more believeable than the conferences' "intellectuals and scholars"), and other politicians. I did meet with my Congressman's (Chris Van Hollen) staff to discuss the Middle East, mainly arguing that we needed to work on not excluding Iran, since my belief is that the people of that country do not wish war with Israel or the U.S. (I have an Iranian acquaintance who confirms this) and that total isolation would feed the flames of Iranian Nationalists.
On Inaugural Day 2007, I attended a party for my Congressman, and then proceeded to the office of Keith Ellison, our first Muslim Congressman. I met his brother Brian (who is Christian) and talked about "The Faith Club". I had written letters of support for Mr. Ellison's decision to use the Quran, arguing that this act was the most solemn, sincere, and honest way to swear to your God that you will defend America.
While I was on vacation later in January, Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy, and, to my surprise, Senator Obama said he was probably going to run. I sent letters to both their campaigns, outlining what I was looking for in a President:
- Our leaders:
Live the “Golden Rule”, and their actions in our country's interest will be based on this universal principle. - Believe in all Americans as Patriots until proven otherwise.
- Show respect and tolerance for all citizens and nations and faiths. Promote respectful dialog between those of differing opinions.
- Work for the common good - not focused on a “narrow group”. Only act unilaterally when it is a last resort.
- Communicate with honesty. Tell the truth of costs (monetary and otherwise) of collective actions.
- Take responsibility, shows true accountability. Do not scapegoat or blame. Refuse to lead by fear (e.g. “get them before they get us”).
- Promote our values (show others the way) through leading by example.
- Are not afraid to use force whenever necessary, but do not believe in pre-emptive war without concrete evidence of a clear threat
But with the world situation continuing to provide the challenge of producing the type of leader that I felt was necessary, it became clear to me that Senator Obama was the best candidate for our time.
I don't agree with everything he says - I believe he slipped when he spoke of attacking Pakistan (even if it was taken out of context, he needs to be careful) - but overall he has the way of thinking and acting that I want to see out of our next leader.
Senator Clinton is a brilliant and caring politician, but she is not stressing problem resolution in the same way as Obama. Unfortunately, for faults not entirely her own, her views and manner tend to create more problems than they resolve. But if she gets the nomination, I'll gladly vote for her. The Republican alternative does not promote any dialogue while it stresses only the military solutions (question for McCain: "can we fight in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan without either a draft and/or a tax increase?")
In recent days, I've been trying to push for greater support for the Annapolis Peace Conference. I've had disagreements with President Bush and Secretary Rice, but I strongly feel that when something good is attempted, we need to show strong bipartisan support. Sadly, I have not seen this from the U.S. Congress or from the candidates. I met Samantha Power (an Obama advisor) recently at her book-signing and asked her about this, but her major focus is on genocide issues such as Darfur, so she was not up on the Israel-Palestine issue. She did say, however, that we should not sit back and wait for the next administration to solve this problem.
I'm one who believes that there is similarities in how we deal with our own personal issues and how Nations and Religions deal with their conflicts. The narrow-minded sees only their own viewpoint, believes only in their "interests". I am of the universalist viewpoint. Try to see the other's way, whether it's with your spouse or another country. The narrow view, which I call "PatBuchannanism", is the easy way to go, since you merely adopt the viewpoints of the small circle you are a part of. The univeralist view is hard, because you are being told you are "surrendering". It has been called "naive". We lose our "sovereignity" and freedom, they say. But to me, many (but not all) of our issues are universal (such as the economy and Global Warming), and the attempts to use "self-interest" methods for their resolution will ultimately fail.
So we need "change". And if all goes well in our election, I see "Better Days Ahead".
That's it for today, more to come. Thanks for reading.
Alan
Free Counter
