With the recent announcement that her sixteen year old daughter, Jamie Lynn Spears, is pregnant, mama Spears had the publishing of a book on parenting delayed indefinitely. One reason, perhaps, is that Mrs. Spears is not, in fact, a very good parent. After all, her oldest daughter has been married twice (once annulled, once divorced), has two children by a backup dancer with a yen for knocking up young women (who is still, shockingly, a more fit parent than she is) and hangs out with a decidedly bad crowd (Paris Hilton et al.). Now the younger Spears daughter, the star of some Nikelodeon show I've never seen called Zoey 101, is pregnant by her 18 year old boyfriend, and her mother didn't even know what was going on because she always did what she was told (!) and never missed curfiew.
While it is not surprising that the series of unfortunate events that has befallen the Spears family has delayed the publishing of what was likely to be a highly fictitious, if somewhat humorous, book about parenting perhaps for good (or at least until the furor dies down about the behavior of the Spears girls), there are nonetheless some serious questions about parenting that Mrs. Spears could answer that remain, as of yet, unanswered. These questions make the claim that Jamie Lynn Spears wants to raise her children in Louisiana for a "normal lifestyle" (more normal than Hollywood perhaps, which is, I must admit, a rather surreal sort of place) a very dubious proposition nonetheless.
For example, the rise of Britney Spears is full of some odd questions. The Spears family was quite poor while Britney and Jamie Lynn were growing up, and Mr. Spears (curiously absent in most accounts of the Spears family) was unable to provide for his family. That made the young and perky Britney a very early breadwinner for her family through her talent in winning beauty pageants (a southern tradition I admittedly know little about). Her appearance on Star Search also provided her family with some much needed cash (as did her work on Disney's Mickey Mouse Club, no doubt), but also raised some serious questions about her parents. For example, Britney's debut as a 10 year old on Star Search was a very sulty performance that belied her youth, and very early on there was a harsh dichotomy between what appeared to be innocence and precocious sexuality. Obviously there are some serious questions about how that came to be (witness, for example, the naughty schoolgirl nature of "...Hit Me Baby One More Time," her first hit with the simultaneous proclamations of her virginity and desire to remain pure until marriage).
In the case of both Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears there appeared to be a public facade of propriety that obviously hid something far darker within. Where exactly did these young ladies learn to practice pretense so well? How exactly were these young women brought up? From all appearances, the two were thrust into fame and placed, as it were, in harm's way without being prepared for the harshness of the real world. Did Mrs. Spears desire to be famous herself, vicariously through her talented daughters, or was it the desperation of being unable to find financial stability through the male breadwinner of the house that led her to use her daughters in order to achieve financial success and public honor?
These questions, and other serious ones, remain unanswered. The riddle of Mr. Spears and the malign impact his failures as a father and provider on his daughters is also an important one. After all, by all appearances, the Spears girls show a proclivity towards decidedly shady male companions. Britney, for example, dated Justin Timberlake (famous himself for his desire to bring "sexy back" and for his exposing of Janet Jackson during that imfamous Super Bowl halftime show) before having a Vegas wedding with a friend (quickly annulled) and then marrying a backup dancer who skipped out on his previous girlfriend who was pregnant with his second child. Nothing says white trash like that Jerry Springer-ish saga. Jamie Lynn herself appears not to have been seriously committed to her baby daddy either, or else she was being especially coy about her private life in a way that appears to have spectacularly backfired on her. The proclivity of the Spears girls for deadbeat guys may have been learned through the example of their decidedly deadbeat father.
But, lest I seem to be too cruel, the travails of the Spears family are not (at least not by me) to be mined for a sense of proud superiority. Rather, they are emblematic of deeper troubles about the state of parenting. Lest we dismiss the struggles of the Spears girls as merely the signs of the corruption of Hollywood, we must examine our own family lives to see how the failures of parents reverberate in the struggles of their children repeating failed patterns from their own past. Rather, there is for me instead a chilling sense that the struggles of the Spears daughters are merely the struggles of many young men and women in our society writ large and in the gossip magazines. How can a young person without the experience of good parenting and with few examples of good parenting around them succeed in becoming a successful adult themselves? What is necessary to reverse the poor lessons of one's childhood unless one commits to very serious study and the diligent observation of such good examples as one can find? And even then, how is one to succeed when one has to create anew instead of merely repeating a good pattern from one's past, when it is difficult enough merely to follow what one has been brought up in from youth? These questions I ask not only for others, but for myself as well...
Friday, December 21, 2007
Monday, December 03, 2007
Two Votes, Two Ways
It is a surprising day when Hugo Chavez, populist leader of Venezuela and fierce enemy of the United States, turns out to be an effective example of how a leader handles electoral defeat. On the other hand, the example of Russia's "managed" elections is a more common example of how autocratic governments can subvert the forms of democracy to obtain their desired vote. In examining these two cases, we can look at what it takes to run a successful democracy, and what sort of checks leaders need in order to avoid the corruption of a democratic society.
The Odd Case of Venezuela
Throughout the history of Latin America, there has been a cycle (a very depressing cycle) of fragile democracies that fracture between the interests of rich and poor, whites, mestizos, and "Indians," replaced by the rule of dictators (or caudillos) that promise economic growth or fairness to the people, at the cost of civil liberties and freedom, and end up resulting in a privileged class stealing the rich natural wealth of these nations and seeking control over all aspects of life. This cycle is not limited to Latin America (witness, for example, the African Continent, much of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia), though it is very entrenched here and has been for the last two centuries or so.
This grim history of the failure of democracy in the region (despite the nearby example of one of the world's most successful republican regimes) now has, it appears, a rather surprising chapter in a particularly unlikely place. Hugo Chavez, the blustering and arrogant leader of Venezuela, had been riding high with large victories, and even overcoming a failed coup attempt. However, his attempt to revise the Venezuelan constitution to allow himself a lifetime term of office and the freedom to control all the press as well as the political and economic life of Venezuela, was too much for the nation to accept and was defeated in a narrow vote. Better yet--the spearhead of the opposition was not the fractured older leaders of the opposition, but rather intelligent and fredom loving university students who mobilized in the tens of thousands against the proposal. Even better still, it appears that Chavez will respect the vote, a much better outcome than could have been predicted before this weekend.
A question that merits being asked is how these particular events can serve as an example for others. It is noteworthy in this case that the revolt was led not by the corrupt leaders of the "old regime" but by the young. If there is to be genuine change, there needs to be a changing of the guard in leadership to remove the corrupt holders of power. Such removal needs to be by just and democratic means (as was the case in Venezuela) lest new corrupt powers take hold and entrench themselves just like the old ones did (witness the depressing aftermath of most revolutions around the world). It is easier to reject the leaders of the past for their problems than to build a more just society in the aftermath of that rejection, but having rejected a dictatorship for Chavez, hopefully the young of Venezuela can overcome the mistakes of their fathers and build a more just and more open society in place of the fiercely divided one at present. Hope springs eternal.
Russia's Managed "Democracy"
A more typical example of pseudo-democracies around the world is the case of Russia's election. Vladimir Putin sought to expand the powers of his government for his successor to continue along his lines of controlling the country and limiting dissent, giving power and wealth to his corrupt friends and assassinating critics and rivals. He managed this task through pressuring voters to vote in their places of work where they could be under the supervision of their bosses (and through economic pressure that jobs and financial survival would be dependent on making the "right" vote, which was of course whatever Putin wanted).
This is a typical example because the forms of democracy itself can be corrupted by authoritarian tendencies which may, for political reasons, which to have the illusion of popular consent even when that reality is not present. Popular support, even if it is received by illegitimate means, often confers the appearance of legitimacy that even bullies and tyrants like to maintain. Even the appearance of consent helps to reduce the threat of rebellion and uprising in the most unjust socieities. Most leaders are savvy enough to realize the need for these shows of consent (Soviet Elections, as well as the throngs of cheering masses desired by every dictator), as it gives them the (often undeserved) satisfaction of having done the will of the people.
It is possible, though, that Putin may have overstepped his bounds. Of course, he does not wish for the approval of the West in his election practices, but he does wish the respect of the West as well as economic help for his nation, and this is jeapordized by corruption that becomes too obvious or behavior that becomes too heavy-handed. Having the suspected assassin of one of Russia's heroes of democracy elected to the Russian Congress would appear to be a mean-spirited move designed to demonstrate Putin's control over Russia. Such insults often tend to backfire--managed democracy, like revenge, is a dish best served cold. There are, no doubt, many people who would wish to emulate Putin's example, as Putin emulated the behavior of countless dictators before him.
The Odd Case of Venezuela
Throughout the history of Latin America, there has been a cycle (a very depressing cycle) of fragile democracies that fracture between the interests of rich and poor, whites, mestizos, and "Indians," replaced by the rule of dictators (or caudillos) that promise economic growth or fairness to the people, at the cost of civil liberties and freedom, and end up resulting in a privileged class stealing the rich natural wealth of these nations and seeking control over all aspects of life. This cycle is not limited to Latin America (witness, for example, the African Continent, much of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia), though it is very entrenched here and has been for the last two centuries or so.
This grim history of the failure of democracy in the region (despite the nearby example of one of the world's most successful republican regimes) now has, it appears, a rather surprising chapter in a particularly unlikely place. Hugo Chavez, the blustering and arrogant leader of Venezuela, had been riding high with large victories, and even overcoming a failed coup attempt. However, his attempt to revise the Venezuelan constitution to allow himself a lifetime term of office and the freedom to control all the press as well as the political and economic life of Venezuela, was too much for the nation to accept and was defeated in a narrow vote. Better yet--the spearhead of the opposition was not the fractured older leaders of the opposition, but rather intelligent and fredom loving university students who mobilized in the tens of thousands against the proposal. Even better still, it appears that Chavez will respect the vote, a much better outcome than could have been predicted before this weekend.
A question that merits being asked is how these particular events can serve as an example for others. It is noteworthy in this case that the revolt was led not by the corrupt leaders of the "old regime" but by the young. If there is to be genuine change, there needs to be a changing of the guard in leadership to remove the corrupt holders of power. Such removal needs to be by just and democratic means (as was the case in Venezuela) lest new corrupt powers take hold and entrench themselves just like the old ones did (witness the depressing aftermath of most revolutions around the world). It is easier to reject the leaders of the past for their problems than to build a more just society in the aftermath of that rejection, but having rejected a dictatorship for Chavez, hopefully the young of Venezuela can overcome the mistakes of their fathers and build a more just and more open society in place of the fiercely divided one at present. Hope springs eternal.
Russia's Managed "Democracy"
A more typical example of pseudo-democracies around the world is the case of Russia's election. Vladimir Putin sought to expand the powers of his government for his successor to continue along his lines of controlling the country and limiting dissent, giving power and wealth to his corrupt friends and assassinating critics and rivals. He managed this task through pressuring voters to vote in their places of work where they could be under the supervision of their bosses (and through economic pressure that jobs and financial survival would be dependent on making the "right" vote, which was of course whatever Putin wanted).
This is a typical example because the forms of democracy itself can be corrupted by authoritarian tendencies which may, for political reasons, which to have the illusion of popular consent even when that reality is not present. Popular support, even if it is received by illegitimate means, often confers the appearance of legitimacy that even bullies and tyrants like to maintain. Even the appearance of consent helps to reduce the threat of rebellion and uprising in the most unjust socieities. Most leaders are savvy enough to realize the need for these shows of consent (Soviet Elections, as well as the throngs of cheering masses desired by every dictator), as it gives them the (often undeserved) satisfaction of having done the will of the people.
It is possible, though, that Putin may have overstepped his bounds. Of course, he does not wish for the approval of the West in his election practices, but he does wish the respect of the West as well as economic help for his nation, and this is jeapordized by corruption that becomes too obvious or behavior that becomes too heavy-handed. Having the suspected assassin of one of Russia's heroes of democracy elected to the Russian Congress would appear to be a mean-spirited move designed to demonstrate Putin's control over Russia. Such insults often tend to backfire--managed democracy, like revenge, is a dish best served cold. There are, no doubt, many people who would wish to emulate Putin's example, as Putin emulated the behavior of countless dictators before him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
