Search This Blog

CCE in brief

My photo
Recovering backpacker, Cornwallite at heart, political enthusiast, catalyst, writer, husband, father, community volunteer, unabashedly proud Canadian. Every hyperlink connects to something related directly or thematically to that which is highlighted.
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts

Friday, 5 April 2013

The Wussification of American Men and What Tough REALLY Looks Like

 
 
I read these two articles in tandem yesterday:
 
 
and
 
Of course, if you're on the far political right, both authors "don't get it" - they are, to you, enablers of the wussification of men.  Screaming at kids, deriding them as "less manly" (ie, gay as a Spartanbrotherly/paternal love between men) makes them tougher, as does throwing balls at their heads.  People like Mike Rice are tough, aggressive, bombastic - what men are supposed to be.
 
If the alpha male is so tough, then, why do they seem to need so much protection?  How can they feel so put-upon if their hides are so thick?  In some subsets of Islam, women need to cover themselves to create a wall between them and men, who would otherwise be too tempted by them.  You know, like Oscar Pistorius, tough guy, masculine athlete.  Fellow tough guys like Femi Fani Kayode seem to feel the need to circle the wagons around him, too, defending him from a mean world and telling us that his girlfriend made him kill her
 
 
Canada's most infamous boxer, Senator Patrick Brazeau, is another exemplification of alpha-tough; ex-military, powerfully built, likes to trash-talk.  He got beaten by a leaner, more strategic opponent in the ring, got caught behaving unethically in his position and quite likely took to assaulting his girlfriend to subconsciously prove to himself that he could still dominate at something.  When he was recently called out for making a stupid April Fools' joke about stepping down from the Senate (where he has clearly not been working hard enough to earn the people's money), his response was "I played the media" - implying, at least to himself, that he was in control.
 
Another sporting fella with a reduced on-the-job-energy expenditure is Rob Ford - football coach, tough guy, tough Mayor.  Except that he constantly whines about media criticism and is so wounded by it that he simply refuses to engage them.  I wouldn't expect a tough guy to rely so heavily on 911; maybe he just needs a gun.
 

If you have a gun, you're to be feared.  You have control over the life and death of others.  Owning a gun makes one feel powerful.  Power and dominance, of course, play a big role in gang culture - as it does in any gun culture, including the one in the States.  What guns don't do is make their wielder tough.  Any scrawny tech-geek can learn to use a gun and with it, take down the burliest of men without getting their hands dirty.  If anything, depending on an external tool like a gun to define one's ability to dominate makes one less tough, not more. 
 
When I look at the big picture, this is what I see; alpha males like Eric Bolling want a licence to dominate the herd and aren't willing to face criticism.  They call themselves tough, but they're not very resilient.  Indeed, there's a definitive fragility to their egos that seems to require protection from verbal assailants by their fellow alpha peers.
 
It's as true of tough-minded Political Parties as it is of individuals; they want unquestioned authority to dominate the landscape and have no one challenge them on resource usage.  That's the whole point of being alpha - you swat down any challengers.  Facts don't matter - he who wields the club defines the rules.
 
There's a bigger trend here, if you look for it - the "wussification of American men" plays out as the emancipation of everyone else.  So, the real issue isn't one of declining strength, but of increased responsibility and sharing of power. 
 
So, yes - Bolling is right, in a sense.  The American Culture of the Founding Fathers is in decline.  At least according to these mortal words in the Declaration of Independence concerning the rights of men:
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
 

The focus here is on the rights of men (White, Anglo-Saxon land-owning men specifically), rights endowed by God.  Mike Rice exercised his rights - smacking around kids over whom he had authority made him feel powerful, which is always a good feeling.  Oscar Pistorious defended his right as a man, removing a barrier to his unalienable right to be content.  The veiling of women (when imposed), the beating of wives, the rape of daughters can be interpreted as expressions of a masculine right to freedom and pursuit of self-gratifying endeavours.  But the implication here is that rights are the unalienable property of men, only and suggests nothing about responsibility.
 
But the Delectation of Independence has something to say about responsibilities, too:
 
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
 
The abolition of slavery, Suffrage, Civil Rights, Gay Marriage - these are all efforts to reduce the yoke of despotism that have historically denied the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness to non-whites, the socially disenfranchised, religious and ethnic minorities and of course, women.
 
I attended a talk yesterday that focused on domestic abuse in Aboriginal communities.  The women who spoke told tales of horrific abuse; one had her jaw broken by her husband.  Another explained how alcohol saved her life, because during a fit of rage, her husband was too drunk to find the right bullets for the gun he planned to shoot her with.  Another talked about visiting rural communities and having to explain to 15 year old girls that no, she didn't have to submit to sex with her father or uncle.
 
There were tears during these presentations, but there was also indomitable strength.  These women had endured horrors far beyond the scope of a man-cold and yet had continued to support their children and seek opportunities for a better life.  Instead of expecting their fellow women to circle the wagons around them, these ladies had taken it upon themselves to empower other women and together, reduce the yoke of abuse that has historically denied them their unalienable rights.  They knew it was an uphill struggle that would continue for generations, but that didn't stop them - it only fueled their determination.
 
Internal strength, super-human resilience and a sense of responsibility for one's peers - that's what toughness really looks like.  As formerly oppressed groups gain increasing access to the market of personal independence, they truly are changing American culture into something that is equally strong, resilient and which balances personal freedoms with social responsibility.  American society, as it were, continues to evolve.
 
Which is the big weakness of Alpha males like Bolling or the GOP entire - they don't do evolution very well
 
I guess they're lucky to have tough, resilient and proactive progressives there to take their hands and help them move forward.

Thursday, 8 November 2012

Go Fast, Go Alone - Go Far...






“Mr. President, We want you to succeed. … Let’s challenge ourselves to find the common ground that has eluded us.”
 
 
I'm a rational optimist, so I know it's possible for people of opposing views to find and build on common ground.  I don't think people are fixed - I believe in evolution, both genetic and social.  When we focus on similarities, we always find we have more in common than not.  It's a good place to build.
 
There will be partisans on both sides who refuse to give an inch and who push for partisan victory, biting extended hands at the expense of the national interest.  The greatest test true leaders face today is to resist the urge to jump on selfish, short-term gain, fueling our political tragedy of the commons and to set the example for the more rabid partisans in their midst.
 
There is no challenge we can't overcome, no mountain we can't move, when we're all pushing in the same direction.
 

Republicans Need to Look to Canada to See How Conservatives Can Win (John Ibbitson)


Alas, the Globe & Mail is telling me my free online access is coming to an end, which means I won't be able to read and help promote their stories much longer.  Lessons abound for everyone, I guess...
 
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, right, and vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan are seen on the stairs of Mr. Romney's campaign plane after they met up in Cleveland, Ohio, on Nov. 6, 2012. (BRIAN SNYDER /REUTERS)
 
Canadian political strategists of every stripe regularly travel to the United States in search of the latest tips, techniques and technology for winning elections. It’s time to reverse the flow.
 
Republicans need to come to Canada, to learn how a Conservative government has put together the very coalition that eludes the GOP, which has now lost the popular vote in five out of the last six presidential contests.
 
What do Conservatives get that Republicans don’t? In a word: immigrants. It’s fascinating to study how and why.
 
Dick Morris, the rabidly conservative pundit and pollster, confidently predicted that Mitt Romney would win a landslide for the Republicans right up until the polls closed, Tuesday. Wednesday, he ate crow.
 
“I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to ‘normal’ levels,” he wrote. “Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics.”
 
As Mr. Morris accurately (for once) observed, African Americans accounted for 13 per cent of the vote on Nov. 6; 10 per cent of the vote was Latino; 19 per cent was cast by voters under 30. All three groups voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama, “accounting fully for his victory,” he concluded.
 
Mr. Morris had based his projections on the assumption that the high voter turnout among these groups in 2008 was a temporary phenomenon, caused by excitement over electing America’s first black president. Voting levels among blacks, Hispanics and the young, he confidently predicted, would drift back to previous levels after four years of a presidency that had its share of difficulties.
“I was wrong,” he acknowledged. And then some.
 
Compare this with the Canadian election of 2011. The Conservative coalition in one respect mirrored its Republican counterpart: It was rooted in white male voters in the conservative heartland – in Canada’s case, the Prairies, plus the rural parts of British Columbia and Ontario.
 
But the Conservatives also did well among immigrant voters. In fact, middle-class immigrant voters who dominate the suburban ridings surrounding Toronto and, to a lesser extent, Vancouver were key to the Conservative victory.
 
Of course, the Tories only took 40 per cent of the vote in the last election, so one conclusion the Republicans might draw is that they should encourage a third party that would split progressive support.
 
But the more practical lesson the Republicans could take from the Canadian example is that it is possible for conservatives to win over minority voters by following these two simple steps: 1) Trumpet responsible fiscal conservatism; 2) Lay off everything else.
 
Conservatives, like Republicans, believe in low taxes, minimal regulations and balanced budgets. Many immigrants to Canada are attracted to that message. They came here to escape the corrupt or tyrannical governments of their native land; they are attracted to a party that promises to mind the store and avoid expensive commitments.
 
But Canadian Conservatives, unlike American Republicans, are pro-immigration. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has made it his life’s work to win over immigrants to the Conservative cause. Immigration levels have remained robust on the Tory watch.
 
The Republican base, on the other hand, forced Mr. Romney to oppose any reasonable compromise in creating a path to legal status for illegal immigrants, or at least their children. The party at every level presents a hostile face to newcomers. Yes, part of that is because many of them arrive illegally. But the impact on the electoral result is nonetheless proving fatal.
 
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also avoided promoting socially conservative issues such as abortion or clawing back gay rights. While many immigrants are socially conservative, they also recognize that intolerance toward another minority could also mean intolerance toward them.
 
Bottom line: If Mr. Romney had put forward a Canadian Conservative platform of low taxes, balanced books, robust immigration and social tolerance, he might be on his way to the White House.
There was one result from Tuesday’s election that Canadian political strategists from all parties should consider. Across the Western world, the young represent a smaller share of votes cast than their numbers warrant.
 
But in the United States, that’s no longer the case. In 2008, voters under 30 made up 17 per cent of the American electorate, yet accounted for 18 per cent of votes cast. On Tuesday, they accounted for 19 per cent of the vote, with 60 per cent of them voting Democrat.
 
A new generation of young Americans has decided to become politically engaged, because they believe in Barack Obama and what he stands for.
 
Someday, a politician may emerge in this country who appeals to young Canadians, who embraces their beliefs and who speaks to them through their (social) media. If so, a new generation of Canadian voters could begin to shape the outcome of elections.
 
The question is simply: When and where will that politician appear?

Tuesday, 21 August 2012

Is Aikin the straw that will break the GOP's back?






The rift has been there for some time - the political right is a hodge-podge of free marketers, social conservatives and libertarians who are primarily united by their contempt/fear of the other guys.  It's more surprising than not, really, that the GOP hasn't fragmented significantly before now.

Aikin might not be the spark for the carving off of a third Party.  But it's not impossible.