it's a shame the south wasn't successful in their secession. It's not a mystery that bigotry is self-reinforcing. I'm not sure which comes first, the bigotry or the religion, but it's not a mystery either that the bigotry of the south is reinforced and justified with religion, over and over again. I am not so naive to think that bigotry doesn't exist elsewhere. Of course it does, but those in the south seem determined, more than people elsewhere, to wave it from the state capital's flagpole along with the confederate flag. I don't believe that people are "entitled" to their ignorance, because the long list of ignominious belief has real consequence for real people, but then too I am not sure quite how we disabuse otherwise intelligent people of their fearful adherence to belief.
I'm not sure if I believe this, but I have this sneaking suspicion that the united states is, well, too big, too complex, to be governed effectively, so some partitioning might actually be appropriate. As the 20th century lapses into the 21st, there seem to be two contravening forces, one toward the globalization of "business," the other toward a balkanization. There are several things happening right now that tend to point in this direction, not least the current spat over the so-called "religious liberty" laws. On the one hand, I do have to admire big business for stepping up and refusing to look the other way. I imagine they could have remained neutral, and simply gone about their business, but they took a positive stand. Likewise, those state governments that have subsequently banned travel to states with discriminatory laws on the books are also taking a positive stand, although that points toward the balkanization -- it's as if New York State has excommunicated Mississippi. That some of these divides take place along traditional regional lines of tension makes it even more pertinent, and it's also pertinent that it's New York, long a "global" city, long home to the biggest of big business, that banned the travel.
It's not quite that neat, however. The real divide seems to be more urban and rural. It's probably not by accident that the governor of Mississippi signed his bill, governor of South Carolina vetoed his. In the former, as a test, name one city in Mississippi? The largest is Jackson, but it is home to only about 175K, which makes it smaller than most suburbs of Chicago. In the latter, Atlanta, not unlike New York, is a "global" city, home to some of biggest of the "global" corporations. It is not a difference without a distinction. At some level, global corporations must be tolerant of cultural, religious, and other differences. If they are truly global, then those markets will be, as they say, diverse, and it makes little sense to confine themselves to a "particular" world view. Although I am sure that there are all sorts of bigotries in the corridors of corporate america, GE cannot endorse a religiously justified hatred of homosexuality, any more than they can endorse the muslim over the christian versions of that hatred. The so-called southern strategy of the GOP, simultaneously courting big business and the evangelical fundamentalists, has perhaps seen its day. For the conservatives, one will need to choose ultimately whether one is a "globalist" and urban, or an "evangelical" and rural. In the end, I don't think one can remain both.
I say, "perhaps has seen its day," in part because marriages, even those made in hell, are difficult to dissolve. I'm pretty sure that the man in the 2000 dollar suit, finds it uncomfortable being at the same party with the toothless red-neck, railing about the niggers and the faggots, but I'm not sure he can yet show the red-neck to the door. That red-neck writes songs about his dog being a democrat, thinks of himself as a "republican," and the 2000 USD suit needs his vote if he is to remain free from taxes and free to exploit that self-same red-neck. Ted Cruz is a case in point, but I think the divide is visible even there. The brief spat about "New York values"shows the crack, though I think that was more a rhetoric of convenience, not conviction, and if push came to shove, as it might at a contested convention, I'm not sure which side Cruz would take. I suspect he'd follow the money, and I also suspect that many of his big business republicans have the same suspicion, and so can tolerate him over the loaded loose cannon of the donald, despite the donald's self-professed big business "cred." The real operatives of global corporations know that the "reality tv" mogul is no more "one of them" than his red-neck, biker-gang supporters. Still, better red than dead, as they say.
No comments:
Post a Comment