What makes America great?

Back in February, I blogged about writing to Jill Lepore asking her if she had written such an essay somewhere on what makes America great.  Lepore replied: "I think my answer to that question is in my next book, which is called "This America: The Case for the Nation."

I read her op-ed in the NY Times.  I liked what she was arguing for:

My fave #PublicIntellectual, Jill #Lepore:
"Nationalism is an abdication of #liberalism. It is also the opposite of #patriotism. To confuse #nationalism with #patriotism is to mistake contempt for love and #fear for valor."https://t.co/jHGe4q8TEN#tRump

— Am.Dr.Khe (@congoboy) May 26, 2019

I suppose I could have made the book a part of my summer reading.  But, this is the first summer when I have taken off from any serious work.  After years of M suggesting that I get out of my head, I implemented it.  It feels like I have put down a huge weight that I had been carrying on all these years.  I have no idea how people like Lepore keep going!

But then even when I don't read books, I do read plenty of book reviews.  This essay reviews Lepore's "This America: The Case for the Nation."  Well, it is a twofer that also reviews "This Land Is Our Land: An Immigrant’s Manifesto," whose author is an Indian-American--Suketu Mehta.

I haven't read Mehta's book either; but, I have read his op-ed and have heard him articulate his argument.

On #tRump's politics of fear of #immigrantshttps://t.co/UVLSPAW5JR#TheBrownsAreComing

— Am.Dr.Khe (@congoboy) June 2, 2019

So, the review essay is not about books that will be unfamiliar terrain.

Nationalism is currently thriving, she believes, because the discourse of American liberalism is deficient. First, that discourse undervalues the radicality and relevance of the country’s founding ideals; second, the preoccupation with the rights of subgroups is essential, certainly, but politically inadequate; third, and here I put the matter much more crudely than Lepore would, liberals must in some sense do battle for possession of the Stars and Stripes. However gauche or complicit it may seem, they must understand and unapologetically frame their values—which currently have a niche, somewhat subversive emphasis—as our core national values:

This America is a community of belonging and commitment, held together by the strength of our ideas and by the force of our disagreements. A nation founded on universal ideas will never stop fighting over the meaning of its past and the direction of the future…. The nation, as ever, is the fight.

I am struck by the reviewer's blunt statement that "liberals must in some sense do battle for possession of the Stars and Stripes."

"The nation, as ever, is the fight."

Right on, Professor Lepore!

"I claim the right to the United States, for myself and my children and my uncles and cousins, by manifest destiny.”

That was not me, but it is from Mehta.

This land is your land, this land is our land, it belongs to you and me. We’re here, we’re not going back, we’re raising our kids here. It’s our country now…. We’re not letting the bastards take it back.
It’s our America now.

We certainly are not letting the bastards take it back.  No way, Jose!

But, for us liberals and immigrants, the challenge is huge when it comes to fighting for the nation. Fighting for our nation.

If Lepore is right and the nation is indeed the fight, liberals must understand what a fight involves. That is, you can’t fight performatively when the other side is fighting to win: that kind of fight simply won’t go on for very long. You have no option but to fight to win, too. You want to win because you are right and they are wrong; because you have a moral right to power and they don’t; because you are real Americans and they’re not.

Fight on!

Abortion in India: as confusing as it is here

Here in the US, everything becomes ultra-passionate. Coke v. Pepsi, Bush v. Gore, pro-life v. pro-choice .... The story is not that different when it comes to India--the struggles are there, perhaps without the ultra-passionate fights, except when it comes to cricket and movies!

Niketa Mehta's gynecologist found out that the fetus might be born with heart problems, which might require a pacemaker almost immediately after birth. Not the best news for any parent. Niketa and her husband, Haresh, decided to abort the fetus and spare the child the possible trauma and low quality of life.

However, it was past the 20th week of pregnancy, and Indian law makes it illegal to abort fetuses at that stage. So, the Mehtas went to court. According to the Times of India, the court ruled that "Undoubtedly, the doctors opinion shows a substantial risk that the child would suffer severe abnormalities. But the opinion itself discloses the necessary treatment to be given with a rider that as things stand a cardiac surgery is not required at birth. In the end, there is no clear opinion that if child is born it would suffer serious mental or physical handicap. It is not mere desire to terminate pregnancy that would entitle a woman to abort her fetus. The legislature in its wisdom has stipulated a time bar of 20 weeks. There is nothing in the petition to suggest that the bar is placed arbitrarily or without logic. Since there is no case made out for us to exercise our discretion to permit the abortion, we dismiss the petition."

The Mehtas are, obviously, dejected--they know they have to carry on with the pregnancy fully aware that the child will have problems from the first second in this world and, for all we know, suffer a sudden death. They point out, "what is disappointing is that we have been proved to be fools. We are educated fools. People in remote areas go to quacks for an abortion. The lesson here being sent out is: don’t follow the law. We are being punished for being law-abiding citizens"

Kalpana Sharma in The Hindu comments that "the question of choice is restricted to an urban class in India that has access to and can afford to use technology to monitor the progress of a pregnancy. Poor mothers have neither the time, nor the money, to go for regular check-ups during pregnancy. If they and the child survive the pregnancy, that in itself is often a miracle given the high rate of maternal and infant mortality in this country. And if at the end of nine months, a deformed or incapacitated child is born, the gods are blamed for it and life goes on. The question of choice simply does not arise, not on whether to get pregnant, or on what to do about an infant with severe health problems.

Niketa and Haresh will now have to live with the choice that has been made for them by the court and the law. But they should be lauded for being open and seeking a legal way out. As a result, they have thrown open an important issue for people to understand and debate."