Redefining Patriotism

As contentious as Barack Obama’s presidency has become, its quest is visibly transformative. What is least likely to go down with his legacy, but is arguably most notable, is the way he has challenged public discourse. On Thursday, February 5th, President Barack Obama addressed religious and political leaders at the National Prayer Breakfast by decrying those who distort religion to wage wars and/or violence. “We have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, profess to stand up for Islam, but in fact are betraying it,” he affirmed. What followed, however, reaffirmed the transformative feature of his presidency by stirring controversy over what it means to be an American:

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history … and lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Immediately after, Americans from all sides clustered against a comment they rendered un-American, un-patriotic, and even anti-Christian. Further disapproval of the statement accused the President of a bad PR move, a false equivalence between ISIL now and the Crusades then, and of a “self criticism [that] doesn’t necessarily serve the cause of foreign policy outreach quite as well as Obama once seemed to believe it would,” wrote Ross Douthat of the New York Times. But most generally, people felt uncomfortable, betrayed. And people felt this way because their President was on the cusp of redefining “American-ness.”

But anyone historically familiar with the Crusades, the Inquisition, or slavery is not only likely to reject the validity of this controversy, but is also likely to appreciate the humbling and reflective words from our Christian-American President. As Ta-Nehisi Coates writes in response to Ross Douthat, the “implicit logic” in criticizing President Obama for his forthrightness essentially asks that Presidents continue to value honesty only so long as it offers “immediate benefit.” Admirably, President Obama’s offers long-term benefits: in strategy, patriotism, discourse, and overall literacy.

“American-ness” as we know it largely rests on redemption history: an interpretation that privileges the apology over the injury. This often clouds our worldly judgment as it inspires blindly patriotic sentiments of nostalgia, infallibility, or deification that give a short view. A short view that eventually trails on to short hands: making public discourse more susceptible to generalizations that underestimates others while overestimating ourselves.

Yet, President Obama redefines American-ness as one of honesty and triumph. With precision and historical literacy, President Obama sobers the American people with hard-hitting truths, with a forthrightness our leadership has been starved of. Patriotism, in the Obama era, is then constructive criticism: a love for this land so honest that it recognizes its mistakes. How else can we curb their repetition?

It is time to dispose innuendos or fears and begin confronting what makes us all – Americans or not, Christians or not – human: our mistakes. Confronting these truths does not make anybody any less Christian, any less American, or any less good. “Nations reel and stagger on their way; they make hideous mistakes; they commit frightful wrongs; they do great and beautiful things. And shall we not best guide humanity by telling the truth about all this, so far as the truth is ascertainable?” W.E.B. Du Bois

Revisionists versus Patriots?

As the deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran approaches, so to does the rift between so-called revisionists and so-called patriots. A false binary, in my opinion, which doesn’t hammer at inevitable fault lines but draws them itself.

On the one hand, we have Iran’s hard-liners assuming staunch anti-Americanness goaded a deal, in which American surrender was inevitable to Iran’s growing hegemony. On the other, we’ve got the permanent members of the UNSC assuming sanctions as the violence necessary to engage Iran. Both of these are dangerous interpretations – interpretations that are not only inconsistent with the history of negotiations but also bode terribly with the pseudo-model of containment constructed to warrant violence.

This is not to say violence is never necessary. It is to say, however, that our interpretations of when violence is necessary is vulnerable to our interpretations of history. Allowing sanctions to rule our impressions of an agreement – instead of the wave of events and attempts at negotiation (03-05) prior to the proliferation of sanctions – has the potential to viciously shape foreign policy as one not only dangerously militant, but even worse: in the eyes of the people, justifiably militant.

President Obama and Education Reform: High Hopes, Low Results

Since the country has been riven by several reports on growing economic inequality, President Obama has been keen to promote accretive legislation securing a social safety net. Among his priorities is the affordability and accessibility of quality education across the nation. Yet, the contretemps over the president’s plans to ensure equal access to higher and quality education – a free two years of community college and various school improvement grants – is that the plans either a) fall into desuetude, b) produce paltry results, or c) end up benefitting the upper class (higher- or middle-) more than the lower class. Consequences that each respectively misuse tax dollars.

Take the President’s most recent proposal to provide two years of free community college, for example. In his State of the Union address, President Obama crystallized the proposal by hoping “college [will become] as free and universal in America as high school is today.” It can be said, then, that President Obama’s interests lie in the maturation of norms: “to make two years of college the norm,” in the words of Cecilia Munoz, director of domestic policy in the White House, “the way high school is the norm.”[1] In theory, this is powerful. But for lower-income students, this does not make much of a difference with respect to already existing Pell Grants. And for all taxpayers alike, this theory only wafts through the country as a hopeful investment in incremental change with little to no immediacy (or result, for that matter).

The proposition is already facing criticism from both the left and the right, with arguments emphasizing the plan’s neutrality in serving the lower class and the plan’s callous government spending. Many of these critiques cite the President’s previous plans to progress education via passé school improvement grants, in which only marginal success has been recorded alongside multi-billion dollar investments. Or President Obama’s wavering commitment to the 529 College Savings Plan, which admittedly offers tax breaks and incentive to the lower-class but disproportionately favors higher-income citizens with the same (or higher) tax breaks. This disparity did not go unnoticed and eventually led President Obama to propose a provision on the 529 Savings Plan prepared to eliminate tax breaks on higher-income households – with the exception of those holding accounts grandfathered in – and in turn, expand the American Opportunity Tax Credit: pledging as much as $2,500 per student for higher-education.

However, the provision faced an uproar from both middle- and higher- income families alongside a Republican Congress that criticized the proposal; House Speaker John Boehner characterized it as  “another example of his outdated, top-down approach, when our focus ought to be on providing opportunity for all Americans.” All of this eventually inspired the White House to withdraw its suggestion. Without the provision and the alternative sources for funding, however, the idea of a free two years of community college falls even shorter as it relies on a property not easily agreed upon: tax increases.

President Obama’s ambitious plans to offer free community college, paid leave for workers, childcare and retirement savings, and more government aid for education are generally financed by a $320 billion tax increase over the next decade. Providing free community college, in and of itself, costs roughly $60 billion. The gnawing question then becomes: is the $60 billion of tax dollars going towards responsible legislation or will hard working Americans be funding yet another failed government initiative? Analyst Stuart Butler of Brookings not only argues that the plan, again, disproportionately favors middle- and higher- income students who do not necessarily need the help while neglecting lower-income students crippled by the more informal costs of education (books, supplies, and transportation), but that it also, unintentionally exacerbates the “undermatching” problem, in which over-qualified students settle for community college to save money. Several other analysts agree, concerned with similarly unintended consequences of hierarchical education: trapping lower-income families in the community college experience and even giving them incentive to do so. Is a tax increase really worth it then – if it does not necessarily change the order of things or confront the deeper problems buried beneath America’s education system?

Surely, the President’s proposals are sewn with good intention. Yet the appeal of stagnancy and/or incremental change can only go so far when the ideas thrive off of tax dollars. It seems the President’s plans are increasingly hopeful and decreasingly effective – often giving the very people it intends to assist the shorter end of the stick. Expanding access to quality- and higher- education is no easy task, but that places all the more weight in responsibly whetting legislation. Particularly when a GOP-led Congress is highly likely to reject a budget characterized by tax increases with few reliable outcomes.

The Missing Character in the Reyhane Jabbari Case

خردمندان نصيحت ميكنندم

كه سعدى چون دهل بيهوده مخروش

وليكن تا به چوگان ميزنندش

دهل هر گر نخواهد ماند خاموش

The wise advise me,

“Sa’adi, don’t make noise like a drum”

But so long as the drum is beaten,

It will not be silent.

At the dawn of October 25th, Gohardasht prison performed an execution that would take the prison’s estranged status in the west of Tehran to a haunting purlieu strangling the country’s determination. Reyhane Jabbari, a woman who had ostensibly murdered her sexual abuser, Morteza Sarbandi, was hanged by the order of Sarbandi’s family – who refused to grant her reprieve.

Jabbari had been in prison and solitary confinement since 2009, when she was convicted of first-degree murder. After reportedly confessing to the murder of Sarbandi, Jabbari’s case then depended entirely on her ability to prove self-defense. The evidential value of a plastic bag of condoms purchased on the way to Sarbandi’s home, alongside the sedatives strategically placed in Jabbari’s drink, was declared small in confrontation with Jabbari’s earlier purchase of a 10-inch knife and SMS to one of her friends, two days before the murder, which read “I think I might kill him.” Either referring to her drunken father or Sarbandi, the message’s salient violence left Sarbandi’s family touting premeditated murder.

Iran’s judicial operation under qisaas, or retribution, is often a misunderstood one – retribution is not granted to a family of victims until the court scours the legitimacy of it. Even after the family is afforded the right to retribution, a team of officials beseech forgiveness on behalf of the perpetrator. Former Chief Justice, Mahmoud Shahroudi, famously implored Ameneh Bahrami after she was blinded by an acid attack carried out by Majid Movahedi, so not to further mar Iran’s international image. Though, Bahrami only chose forgiveness at the very last second.

In a system where the victims do the deciding, the lines are drawn at different borders. Agitated by the international portrait of their son as a rapist, Sarbandi’s family offered to exchange reprieve with the “truth” — defined as 1) what Jabbari’s real reason for murder was and 2) the identity of an aforementioned third-party whom Jabbari refers to as “Sh.”

Knowing this, the tempestuous nature of qisaas is not so much the issue in place as is the status of Morteza Sarbandi, who was a former intelligence officer. For one, this, coupled with his elite background, granted him a prerogative in the court that Jabbari could not amount to. And on both the defendant and the plaintiff’s side, this prerogative may very well have inspired the neglect of the unnamed third party involved, which Jabbari introduced later in the trial as the man responsible.

I have a hard time believing a 19-year old woman with a knife is physically capable of murdering a 47-year old physician who was formerly in the Ministry of Intelligence — simply because the latter assumes higher levels of defense-handling. I have an even harder time believing one person is responsible for stab wounds both in the posterior and the upper-body in the portrait drawn of both Jabbari’s and Sarbandi’s respective positions. Medical evidence indicating sporadic stab wounds can only so clearly suggest that these punctures were not done single handedly, especially when lining contiguously with Jabbari’s assertion that she had already left the apartment before any further stabbings. I’d also imagine Sarbandi’s last words screaming “thief!” could not possibly apply to Reyhane Jabbari, but the third-party.

Jabbari, then, is not only the victim to a potential rape but also a ploy. The increasingly tasteless arguments that Jabbari could have chosen other alternatives in the spur of the moment or that she is immune to rape because of the “services and benefits” relationship she had with Sarbandi is not only insensitive to a woman in her position, upholding a crisp holier than thou pacifism and deranged definition of rape, but is also dangerously incomplete. Jabbari’s reluctance to even mention the third-party’s involvement echoes her fear of revealing his name, and Sarbandi’s background as an intelligence officer easily evinces the likelihood of handfuls of enemies. The lack of further investigation into this third-party’s involvement runs an embarrassing failure in Iran’s attempt to mete out justice.

With punishments as severe as execution, trials have a responsibility to be whole and impartial, so not to rid the innocent of their right to life. The entirety of “innocent until proven guilty” is intended to protect just that. Such an interpretation of qisaas can deafen the degree of its compensation – and the callous neglect of Sarbandi’s past deems this trial incomplete. It is a shame that an incomplete trial has now been matched with a complete execution.