Finally, after millions of hours, millions of dollars and millions of blog posts and other Internet chatter, gays and lesbians can serve in the military without fear of discharge if they choose to reveal their sexuality. From arguments about protecting "unit cohesion" to avoiding "unwanted advances", opponents of dumping a hastily drafted policy on who merited the right to serve in their nation's military lost their fight. Their fight included some of the nastiest, uninformed, poorly reasoned comments I have ever heard. Both my father and stepfather served honorably in the military during the 1960s. Despite my father's relative conservatism and my stepfather's relatively progressive views, they both agreed that it was profoundly stupid to imply or directly state that one's sexual orientation had anything to do with honorable service. They both served with men whom they knew were gay and both told me they never, ever had a problem befriending or working with gay military personnel. Frankly, it would not have mattered to me if they said the exact opposite.
Although votes were taken and the end of the debate was reported as coming from the U.S. Senate, the extenstion of full civil rights are not about majority rule. Civil rights guarantees are embedded in the United States Constitution and are in many cases designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Social mores change. The beauty of the Constitution is its modern relevance and elasticity. It practically invites us to search every day for those who have been left out of its promise of equality and work to include them in it. It is perhaps the best living document on the planet and has helped make us a wealthy, stable, forward thinking global power. What weakens our influence abroad is the abandonment of the principles we preach to other nations as essential in a civilized society.
This past week is one important example of how a civilized society can come to terms with social change with little or no bloodshed. It is part of the reason so many people try desperately and even risk their lives to emigrate to the United States, despite its unresolved flaws. My heart goes out to the families and friends of gay soldiers who were dishonorably discharged because of who they loved or were or in some cases paid for their service by being murdered by their fellow soldiers. They are heroes and they deserve our recognition and our gratitude.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Are Sarah Palin and Diana, Princess of Wales Sisters Under the Skin?
I admit I did a bit of a double-take when I read the squib on AOL about likening Sarah Palin to Diana, Princess of Wales, including a shot of anger that is, admittedly, mostly political. I initially bristled at the suggestion that the two women had anything in common and that Diana has been dead for over ten years and obviously could not defend herself even if she chose to do so. Then it occurred to me that there might be a kernel of truth in the piece and even famous political families I admire (including the Kennedys and the Bushes, believe it or not) share an ability to mold their images through managing their media coverage that even Bill and Hillary Clinton have to envy to some extent. Let's also not forget Brooke Astor, the second (or third?) wife of John Astor, who apparently had one of the first pre-nuptial agreements amongst 20th century blue-bloods. She took what she got (which admittedly was a lot) but became one of the most admired, recognizable charitable givers of the last century despite her aversion to uncontrolled media coverage.
Although most people except rabid haters of royalty considered Diana an iconic beauty, most of them would also be constrained to admit that she - as many of her detractors preferred to highlight - pursued little formal education and was not considered intellectually gifted. Palin, no matter who does her hair and make-up, is not by any measure an iconic beauty but is quite pretty, and is roundly considered intellectually bankrupt despite having a bachelor's degree. Diana was clearly a clothes horse. Palin showed us early on she likes $3,000 suits even though she denies caring much about clothes. Both women shied away from unflattering media coverage and ended up learning - probably on their own - how to manage it and manipulate their images to suit their needs and desires.
The differences between Sarah Palin and the Princess of Wales are equally stark. Diana was thrown into a role at the age of 19 with little support and, at least from the perspective of the royal family, had three main jobs to do - produce heirs to the throne, look attractive and follow her husband's lead in her service to her subjects, all while knowing early on that her marriage, as she so deftly put it in an interview, "was a bit crowded". She took care of the first two expectations about as flawlessly as anyone could have done and once she discovered her husband's inability to part with his mistress and barely made an effort to hide it, she excused herself from following her husband's lead in any arena and did the bare minimum when it came to public appearances with him. Palin was thrown into her role with extraordinary support, at a time in her life when she should have been expected to know more about the world around her and did not have to contend with a philandering husband that might have destroyed her self-esteem. Those are big differences. Had Diana lived, what would she be doing right now? I suspect she would be counseling her sons and lending her name to charitable pursuits and would likely have married again and pursued a life much more like Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's than Sarah Palin's, even with Palin's new wealth. Diana and Onassis were never seriously accused of exploiting their children or failing to raise them to become solid citizens. The same cannot be said for Palin. Diana's lack of formal education did not stop her from being curious about global politics. Palin still shows no real signs of being curious about anything except how to make more money. Few ever questioned that Onassis was more than a triple threat: a protective mother, great pedigree, beautiful, well educated, curious and perhaps the best media player of her generation.
Obviously, the biggest difference between Diana and Palin is that Palin has time to study if she cares to do so, has more technology at her fingertips to mold her image while bypassing mainstream media and lives in a country where bootstrappers - or perceived bootstrappers - are admired by most citizens. She has the freedom to change at a reasonably young age and to soften at least some of the harsh rhetoric that made her famous in the first place. Diana never engaged in harsh rhetoric and is frozen in time as a budding global ambassador whose interests ran to helping the most vulnerable people on the planet rather than Ms. Palin's obvious interest in pandering to her admirers' worst fears and hatreds.
Whatever one's political stripe, we can be sure of one thing. We won't likely see Sarah Palin in a boat with an Arabian man and we won't see her repurposing a $10 million necklace into a headband at a State Dinner at the White House. Prince Charles may truly love Camilla and certainly hated Diana's ability to upstage him whenever she chose, but had he shoved Camilla to the side or was at least more discrete and learned to respect his first wife a bit more while she was alive, there would be no question about his eventual ascendency to the throne. Jack Kennedy - even though he was a known philanderer himself - at least had the common sense and confidence to say so famously, "I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris." The reason Charles might not become King is, in my view, because of the worst character defect of all: making everything in life about yourself.
Although most people except rabid haters of royalty considered Diana an iconic beauty, most of them would also be constrained to admit that she - as many of her detractors preferred to highlight - pursued little formal education and was not considered intellectually gifted. Palin, no matter who does her hair and make-up, is not by any measure an iconic beauty but is quite pretty, and is roundly considered intellectually bankrupt despite having a bachelor's degree. Diana was clearly a clothes horse. Palin showed us early on she likes $3,000 suits even though she denies caring much about clothes. Both women shied away from unflattering media coverage and ended up learning - probably on their own - how to manage it and manipulate their images to suit their needs and desires.
The differences between Sarah Palin and the Princess of Wales are equally stark. Diana was thrown into a role at the age of 19 with little support and, at least from the perspective of the royal family, had three main jobs to do - produce heirs to the throne, look attractive and follow her husband's lead in her service to her subjects, all while knowing early on that her marriage, as she so deftly put it in an interview, "was a bit crowded". She took care of the first two expectations about as flawlessly as anyone could have done and once she discovered her husband's inability to part with his mistress and barely made an effort to hide it, she excused herself from following her husband's lead in any arena and did the bare minimum when it came to public appearances with him. Palin was thrown into her role with extraordinary support, at a time in her life when she should have been expected to know more about the world around her and did not have to contend with a philandering husband that might have destroyed her self-esteem. Those are big differences. Had Diana lived, what would she be doing right now? I suspect she would be counseling her sons and lending her name to charitable pursuits and would likely have married again and pursued a life much more like Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's than Sarah Palin's, even with Palin's new wealth. Diana and Onassis were never seriously accused of exploiting their children or failing to raise them to become solid citizens. The same cannot be said for Palin. Diana's lack of formal education did not stop her from being curious about global politics. Palin still shows no real signs of being curious about anything except how to make more money. Few ever questioned that Onassis was more than a triple threat: a protective mother, great pedigree, beautiful, well educated, curious and perhaps the best media player of her generation.
Obviously, the biggest difference between Diana and Palin is that Palin has time to study if she cares to do so, has more technology at her fingertips to mold her image while bypassing mainstream media and lives in a country where bootstrappers - or perceived bootstrappers - are admired by most citizens. She has the freedom to change at a reasonably young age and to soften at least some of the harsh rhetoric that made her famous in the first place. Diana never engaged in harsh rhetoric and is frozen in time as a budding global ambassador whose interests ran to helping the most vulnerable people on the planet rather than Ms. Palin's obvious interest in pandering to her admirers' worst fears and hatreds.
Whatever one's political stripe, we can be sure of one thing. We won't likely see Sarah Palin in a boat with an Arabian man and we won't see her repurposing a $10 million necklace into a headband at a State Dinner at the White House. Prince Charles may truly love Camilla and certainly hated Diana's ability to upstage him whenever she chose, but had he shoved Camilla to the side or was at least more discrete and learned to respect his first wife a bit more while she was alive, there would be no question about his eventual ascendency to the throne. Jack Kennedy - even though he was a known philanderer himself - at least had the common sense and confidence to say so famously, "I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris." The reason Charles might not become King is, in my view, because of the worst character defect of all: making everything in life about yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)