Tolerance

Having arrived home the rest of this blog, which I do hope to continue by way of diary, will continue with some ex post writing.

One question: The notion of tolerance doesn't very well treat its own limits. In many of my talks on this trip I tried to get people to not think so much of what they would tolerate but what they would not tolerate.

My friend Arifin suggested that a Democracy comes with certain responsibilities -- and not be critical of religion was one of them. My own feeling is that criticism is a matter of respect -- you always criticize things you respect; you call them to something better and point out their flaws because you expect something better.

Limiting that criticism ahead of time simply prevents effective criticism.

History Presentation at my Friend Vipti's school

We watched a presentation, in English, on US history at Vipti's school.

It was classic Indonesian powerpoint with a lot of color, background, and jumping letters. It took five minutes to load.

It was really good! The students in the class probably knew more about US history that US students! They covered the Revolution to the Civil War in 20 minutes. It was very impressive.

There were some funny interpretations

George Washington was "America's big commander"
Slavery was "taper bondage"
Carpetbaggers were an "ethnic group"

but the best was the discussion of anti-tax sentiments and the tea party -- with the text imposed over a background picture of Che Guevera (noted anti tax activist)

Rus' School

My friend Rus (short for Rustiadi) is a teacher, administrator, and guidance counsellor at an Islamic boarding school. He fasts every other day and is a very devout Muslim. In the US "devout" does not always carry with it the image of funny, energetic, open, and generous -- one thinks of a serious mind focused on the after life -- but Rus is all of these things. If he can't make you feel good about the world no one can. We got a lot of questions about the Swiss vote on Minaret constructions (for which we were unqualified to answer); sex education; relations between the sexes (i.e. do people sleep together before marriage) and divorce.

The students, in single gender classes, were incredibly lively. Rus had them play a game where he would pose a question (it was a religion class and it was about the ritual washing before prayer (Wudu). Teams of students raced to answer the question and hand it in and he awarded points for the answers.

I was asked to collect on the second question and did so (I can stand and receive paper with the best of them) but I failed keep them in order of receipt -- I missed that part -- thereby screwing up the game. A deep cultural misunderstanding!

During question period -- there is always a question period -- students kept asking if I wanted to sit down. I am old in Indonesia and people just assume I'm frail -- it gets annoying (how are you? are you hot? Please sit down? Oh, that is so far.) and makes me want just pick up heavy loads and carry them around for no good reason.

At the end everyone did a kind of "clap clap clap YEAH" and, of course, I put this into my "indonesian culture is community oriented" box. Thought about writing about "indonesian group cheers" in my blog -- and the Rus told me he learned it at a Cincinnati Reds game last summer.

Education

People argue forever over education -- its purposes, methods, costs, and functions. Although the word "indoctrination" is a bit strong -- and "critical thinking" is on the tongue of every teacher and administrator -- education does indoctrinate the student into the society.  The burden of acceptable behavior is like strong air pressure -- influential but invisible.

The positive side of this is that belonging to a group or culture seems to be a human universal and that education, in preparing students for belonging, fills an important role. All of this is difficult to discuss in the US because of our culture of individualism (which we also pass on thru education --- and that is fine) -- but in Indonesia the notion of "this is our culture" or "of course we pass on our culture" isn't questioned -- they feel less guilt about being Indonesian than US schools often feel about being from the US.

Religious Education

This is a grant that looks at the way in which Indonesia and the US handle religious diversity.  The term “religious diversity” has a nice, polite, social science “lets all just love each other” feel but, in fact, coping with it has been an enormous historical challenge. It is about peace and war; belief, tolerance, and salvation.

Not a simple stew.

Both countries are large, religious, diverse, democracies.

The US takes a “negative” approach to religion – government stays away from issues of conscience and religion is not taught in a devotional way in the schools.  This system is not without controversy; many of  the more stringent forms of separation are recent; and, if given the chance, many in the US would make changes such as allowing prayer in the schools.

Indonesia takes a “positive’ approach. There is a “Ministry of Religious Education” responsible for religious education in the schools.  Public schools all require religious education, and students pray each day (in a way – Islam, as the dominant religion, sets the schedule) and schools routinely have us visit the school Mosque (I haven’t been to a school without one) as well as the collection of Catholic or Christian students learning about their religion and praying.

The approaches are so different as to stun students when they hear about the other's practice – but they are rooted in history and culture and both are good faith efforts to solve the very difficult dilemma presented by the conflict between belief and freedom.

One freedom not evident in Indonesia (and this is an observation, not a criticism) is the freedom not to believe. You must declare a religion – it goes on your ID card (Islam, Christian, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, and Confucian).

I remember one school where we visited the Christian students while they were praying. There were 10 to 12 students and a teacher. The room was sparse but had a cross and a small Christmas tree. The call to prayers was very loud in that vicinity and one had the impression of a somewhat embattled minority – but I don’t think, in this case, that my impression was right. The students did not feel left out (although one girl said she could date a Muslim boy but not marry him, and she felt sad) and, overall, the system often works.

Scott Brown and Indonesia

I was wrong. I have to figure out a way to debase myself in front of my parties and elections students to whom I said two or three times "Scott Brown has no chance". I was wrong.

In my defense, I did say that he was a very good candidate. But he couldn't win. I said that Coakley was the perfect demographic candidate for the primary (one woman, three men, had a head start -- short campaign) but not a great candidate -- in all that I was right -- but I thought she would win. I was wrong.

Almost everyone was wrong -- and some of those who were right are of the "all clocks are right twice a day" variety of right -- and very few people are owning up to it. The press is full of "the national media did not anticipate" -- just say it authors, you were wrong. You had no idea. You turned in your copy without looking and looked ahead to the next story. You were wrong. At least there is a lot of company.

Why? First of all, it isn't irrational to be wrong. The data, history, and early polls all reinforced the inevitable Coakley victory. Some of it -- maybe a lot -- has to do with the campaign.

Brian McGrory, in an funny if condescending article article in the Globe captures the campaign differences -- with Brown as the handsome stranger who captivates us by paying attention to our conversation at a party.

But it is also about issues -- and larger patterns of American politics. David Broder argues that Americans like a "supportive but not imperious government. His advice

"If I were President Obama, I would spend the next year showing how government can serve a humble, helpful and supportive role to the central institutions of American life. Even in blue states like Massachusetts, voters want a government that is energetic but limited — a servant, not a leviathan."

Although I think Brooks in on to some thing, I'm not sure what humble means -- we already have an enormous and powerful government and could never get rid of it -- it always surprises me when conservatives seem to deny this obvious fact -- but it also amazes me that liberals still look for top down national solutions in the face of their unpopularity.

But whatever it was, a diffuse sense of anger at the world, a poor campaign, opposition to health care -- a great republican campaign run by a talented and experienced group of republican operatives -- all of them are true-- Massachusetts has a Republican senator. What does this mean? Given that I was so wrong about the election, let me now attempt to be wrong about this as well. Here are a series of random thoughts.

Republicans will over interpret this election just like Democrats over interpreted the Obama victory. The interesting race last year was Clinton v Obama -- it was a high personal and political drama more than a contest of ideas. The general election was fairly close to a given. The Bush administration was largely seen as having failed at providing solutions to problems and they wanted to give someone else a chance. Obama's personality, ideology, and campaign all helped in his victory -- but it was a rejection, not an affirmation.

Americans are getting very hard to govern - if we take governance as actually "doing something". Obama did act quickly to pass a stimulus package (in a way different from what Bush would have been done but utilizing a precedent set by the Bush administration). There was (and should have been) an air of emergency about the economy. Aside from that, he has been given remarkably little time to work through his agenda. Talk all now seems to focus on the "fairness and democracy" of 41 senators (Scott Brown's chant "41" "41") stopping things. Past republican criticism for special rules for minorities has now changed to a concentrated concern for minority protection in the US senate. When our government debate is about overcoming a small minority in our already elected bodies, action is in the waiting room while process is given the interview -- and the job.

Obama has been far too nice. Here is a man elected by a reasonable majority -- elected to do something different -- and with an overwhelming majority in the house and the senate and his party can't pass their centerpiece legislation? If I was them, I would stuff it down the throats of republicans using every procedural trick they can -- the republicans would.

The democrats have no balls in this case. People don't care at all about process (for long -- sometimes they do in the short term) they care about results. If Democrats really believe in health care reform pass it and let the results speak for themselves -- people may well really like it once it isn't a theory any more. I'd rather lose defending an action then lose defending a possibility. Does anyone seriously think that Dems won't be attacked for supporting health care reform whether it passes or not? Do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may (I am not at all sure about the health care reform bill -- but if I was a supporter I would take the stance listed above). concern for minority rights and fairness have now appeared in new.

The Brown election will increase Democratic retirements and improve the quality of Republicans who decide to seek office. Good politicians are professionals and a professional knows when she has a chance to win. Brown's victory alters their calculations in the "if it can happen there" mode. A combination of dem retirments and better rep candidates reinforces the normal off-party gain -- and the Republicans pick up more seats.

Local MA republicans should now have a better poll of candidates as well -- although the party has never been good in translating such gains locally -- my gut feeling is that Deval Patrick and the House and Senate Dems (very few of whom have any real campaign experience) are in serious trouble.

The election of Brown may help Obama in Afghanistan. The Massachusetts electorate even applauded his support of waterboarding -- and may be yet another signal that despite a new and very different face, American foreign policy may not undergo a drastic change.

The republicans may do well in the mid-term elections but I still believe that they have a fundamental problem. Generational change on moral questions, and an aging and restive religious right, seriously hampers their national coalition. Being against Obama is a great short term strategy (unless he succeeds -- see above) but in the long run they need a broad, governing agenda -- and the coalition that was successful starting with Reagan is not what it was. Even Brown may find it hard to win re-election in liberal Massachusetts. One danger for the right is that this will be seen as reinforcing their agenda and they will, like the Democrats did in this campaign (It is rumored Coakley mocked Brown for shaking hands outside of a special Bruins game held outside of Fenway park and that she didn't know Curt Schilling played for the Red Sox -- both bizarre in the extreme if true) ignore the local elements of the campaign. They may well overreach and find, when they do, that there is no broad voter support there for a national campaign.

When I give my talk in Jakarta it will be to a largely Indonesian audience in love with President Obama. They have recently built a statue of him here (as a child, releasing a butterfly -- it is above -- I can't figure out how to place the picture in a different place) I will tell them that the Presidency is an institution and not a person. As human beings we naturally gravitate toward evaluating personality and character, but that elected officials are limited by public opinion, culture, and the power of other institutional leaders.

I will also say that the US is now experiencing rapid political change -- it has only been one year from the Obama inaugural to the Brown election; the change those two events suggest is startling -- but I think they both share in common a general discontent -- a discontent -- even anger -- that Obama didn't create -- but that he hasn't erased.

Talk at University

I had been invited by my friend Wahyuddin to talk at the University where he teaches. Ahmad and Dhindin -- both former participants, are also at the school and I visited it last year at a different campus. The rector, who we met, had lived in Minnesota, spoke English, and vaguely remembered me. I am best remembered vaguely.

Through a miscommunication I had prepared a talk on President Obama's first year but the title turned out to be "Democracy and Tolerance: The American Experience". I worked on my talk off and on in the car and upon arrival it was a little bit more of a panel discussion where the rector, Wahyuddin, Sam, and Julienne all spoke and it was very good. My talk was short and was centered on the strangeness of tolerance. We all want it but the word is a little ambiguous --- you don't "tolerate" your friends. And, in fact, Old English usage is "bearing a hard burden". So the point is tolerance is hard.

I also argued it was a political virture, requiring the hard work of law, education, and respect for institutions. Finally, I suggested that the important question isn't tolerance, but what would you not tolerate -- are the boundary conditions -- the fence and enclosure -- of thoughts on tolerance acceptable and what political conversations and actions are available to increase the size of the fence in a way acceptable to (but not subservient to) the culture at large.