Jon Stewart and US President Barack Obama are men of a similar age with, on some days, a similar role. Sometimes it falls to both of them to help their fellow Americans digest what is happening around them, to make sense of it. On Wednesday last week it was the murder by a white supremacist of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina.
The TV host did something unusual, dispensing with his usual gag-packed opening to deliver a joke-free monologue. Obama, by contrast, did something that has become all too usual, delivering what is now a rhetorical genre of its own: The presidential post-massacre speech.
“I’ve had to make statements like this too many times,” he said.
By one count, it was the 14th time he had to speak in such a way after such a mass shooting.
Stewart’s emphasis was on the US’ enduring struggle over race. Obama chose to focus on the country’s equally stubborn problem with guns. However, what was striking was that on both questions — what writer Gary Younge rightly calls the US’ “twin pathologies” — both the presenter and the president struck the same tone. They matched each other in weary resignation.
Stewart said Americans had been forced to peer into a “gaping racial wound that will not heal.” Then, with comic’s timing, he added that he was confident that: “By staring into that and seeing it for what it is we still don’t do jack shit.”
GUN EPIDEMIC
For his part, Obama began with a declaration that: “It is in our power to do something about the guns epidemic,” but then he dampened any expectation of action: “I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now.” Mindful of a hostile Congress that has thwarted him at every turn, all he could promise was that US would, “at some point,” have “to come to grips with” the issue of gun violence, and “shift how we think about” it.
You can see why both men — nearing the end of their terms of office — have given up hope that change is on its way. When it comes to both race and guns, there have been episodes so shocking that people assumed action was bound to follow. And yet the brutality, especially police brutality, shown toward black Americans — those doing nothing more threatening than walking or breathing or swimming or praying — goes on.
When in 2012 a 20-year-old man walked into Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, killing 20 children and six adults, many assumed this would finally expose the limits of US indulgence of gun rights. Obama declared enough was enough and proposed a raft of gun control measures. They seemed to be making progress until the National Rifle Association got busy, pressuring wavering senators facing tough re-election battles and the effort was crushed.
Race and guns are the birth defects of the American republic, their distorting presence visible in the US constitution itself. The very first article of that founding document spelled out its view that those “bound to service for a term of years” — slaves — would count as “three fifths of all other Persons.” Meanwhile, the second amendment enshrines “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
The three-fifths rule was eventually discarded, but the legacy of slavery hangs heavy. In South Carolina the flag of the slave-owning Confederacy still flies. The church where those worshipers were gunned down was on Calhoun Street, named in honor of a luminary of 19th-century white supremacy. As for guns, a rule written in the age of the musket, designed to protect an infant republic from the return of King George’s redcoats, still holds — allowing a 21-year-old bent on provoking a race war easy, legal access to a weapon that lets him commit what, in a different context, would be called an act of terror.
A rule written in the musket age, to protect an infant republic from the return of King George’s redcoats, still holds.
The result is paralysis and a desperate fatalism. The paradoxes are obvious. The US, the land of restless innovation, is shackled to its past. The US sees its own wounds and cannot heal them, its hands tied by a constitution that in almost every other respect is a manifesto for liberation.
This is obviously a catastrophe for Americans and not only because of the damage guns and racism inflict both separately and when they collide, as they did so devastatingly in Charleston. It also feeds a corrosive cynicism. Americans are already skeptical of their democracy, which can seem more like a dynastic plutocracy, a perennial battle of the House of Bush against the House of Clinton, bankrolled by unseen corporate giants.
However, when they see a US president apparently impotent in the face of the gun menace, what are they meant to think of their own power to change things for the better?
DESTINY IN THEIR HANDS
Americans like to tell themselves anything is possible, that their destiny is in their own hands. Politicians describe the country as “this great experiment in self-government,” insisting they can make the US anew if they want to. Yet the persistence of arms and racism and armed racism suggests that the people are, in important ways, powerless: A nation still ruled by its ancestors; a nation that has forgotten the wisdom of one of its greatest revolutionaries, Thomas Paine, who understood that “government is for the living and not for the dead; it is the living only that has any right in it.”
All this matters beyond the US too. The US’ influence in the world does not rest solely on its wealth and military might. It also requires the US to be admired. As former US president Bill Clinton said five years after the Iraq invasion: “People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.”
Every one of these mass killings, or police shooting of innocent black men and women, undermines that example. It makes the US look like a basket case, a country that seems to think it is normal for a toddler to find a gun in his mother’s purse and accidentally shoot himself dead, a country that saw 12,600 of its people shot dead last year and believes itself incapable of doing anything about it.
To change will mean looking to the rest of the world and recognizing that, as Obama said, most “advanced countries” do not have this problem.
It will require a reckoning with the circumstances of the US’ birth — and the courage to say that the US is not the country it was more than two centuries ago and can no longer be bound by those rules: That it has changed — and that it can be so much better.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath