At the republican national convention, during an ABC news interview with one of the prime time speakers, Antonio Sabato Jr., was asked "You believe that Obama is a Muslim?" to which he responded "absolutely." He went on to add, "I have a right to believe that, just as you have the right to go against that, but I believe it." When I quoted Dr. James Scaminaci on the christian right's "epistemological break with reality," such is precisely what he meant and what I meant. There is nothing one could say, no facts one could bring forward, no evidence that one might present, that would change his mind. Earlier in the same interview, despite the interviewers pointing out that Obama regularly attends church, Sabato said of him, “I don’t believe the guy is a christian. I don’t believe the guy follows the God that I love and the Jesus that I love. If you follow his story, if you understand about Obama, I mean, that’s not a Christian name, is it?” The newscasters interviewing him are somewhat stunned, and you see them trying, unsuccessfully, to bring the conversation into the realm of reality, back into "normal" political discourse. Sabato's insists that, despite any evidence to the contrary, he believes Obama is "on the other side," and his belief is all he needs.
Sabato's interview lends credence to Neal Gabler's 2009 assertion (cited in Scaminiaci) that
Perhaps the single most profound change in our political culture over the last 30 years has been the transformation of conservatism from a political movement, with all the limitations, hedges and forbearances of politics, into a kind of fundamentalist religious movement, with the absolute certainty of religious belief. I don't mean "religious belief" literally. This transformation is less a function of the alliance between Protestant evangelicals, their fellow travelers and the right (though that alliance has had its effect) than it is a function of a belief in one's own rightness so unshakable that it is not subject to political caveats. In short, what we have in America today is a political fundamentalism, with all the characteristics of religious fundamentalism and very few of the characteristics of politics.
By politics, Gabler means "a process of conflict resolution has been based on give-and-take; negotiation; compromise; the acceptance of the fact that the majority rules, with respect for minority rights; and, above all, on an agreement to abide by the results of a majority vote." Gabler, of course, is describing secular democracy, but when the patterns of belief implicit to religious fundamentalism come to encompass the political -- when, that is, the inerrant truth of god, as represented by the "biblical world view," becomes applicable to all "political, economic, social, and scientific situations" -- there can be no negotiation or compromise. There is one truth, and one truth only, and the authority of that truth trumps (pun intended) anything that might resemble "majority rule."
There are a number of ways to understand why conservatives "hate President Obama with a fervor that is beyond politics," as Gabler put it, but perhaps the principle reason is a differing moral world view centered, not on what might be called an "observational" view of truth, but what might be called an "authoritarian" view of truth. There is a deep and nuanced argument here stemming from enlightenment epistemology, but if I could just summarize. On the one side, the "observational" view of truth is perhaps most profoundly captured in the scientific world view -- that is to say, any hypothetical statement or theory about the world, if true, must be verified by multiple and independent observations of "evidence" that support the theory. Think of it as a court of law. The hypothetical statement, "Joe Doe murdered Jane Doe," must be supported by direct evidence that he had the opportunity, the means and the motive to do so, and that he in fact actually did so. The police collect the evidence, the jury deliberates on the evidence, and a verdict is rendered on the hypothesis, "Joe Doe murdered Jane Doe." All such verdicts are provisional. Good evidence may make a convincing case for the truth of the hypothesis, but additional evidence may draw it into question. The use of DNA evidence to dispute standing convictions might be an example.
On the other side, the "authoritarian" view of truth posits a central, incontrovertible authority. It may not be the sole arbiter of truth -- and most who hold authoritarian views also live quite comfortably in a day-to-day world commonsensical observational reality -- but the accepted authority is always and ever the final arbiter of truth. The "authoritarian" view of truth is perhaps most profoundly captured in the "biblical world view." Consequently, as Chris Mooney (cited in Scaminaci) has noted, "the republican party has a base composed of conservative religious believers who are convinced that reality and the bible ... must comport." The emphasis on "must" is my own. If one is presented with evidence that seems to contravene the authority of the bible, it is either dismissed out of hand, or ONLY the evidence supporting the authority of the bible is admitted into discussion.
Democratic politics, as Gabler defined it above, is contingent upon a common set of goals and "observational" view of truth. Gun violence might provide a case in point at the moment. There may well be those who support additional gun violence, but one suspects they are very few and far between. It might reasonably be assumed that both the conservative and liberal parties favor a reduction, and that the real questions center on the best means available to effectuate such a reduction. There is, of course, considerable room for disagreement on this matter, and the devil is always in the details, but after deliberation back and forth, one might form hypothetical statements about the best course of action to take based on the evidence at hand -- "we should do X to reduce gun violence." Any verdict will always be provisional, and after X has been implemented, one can and should follow up, asking "how's our current policy X working out? Has gun violence gone down?" If it's not working, or not working as well as one would hope, then one should take other measures until the trend line goes in the right direction and gun violence is reduced. Democratic politics, at the end of the day, is deeply common-sensical, deeply pragmatic -- either X works to reduce gun violence, or it doesn't work, and one goes from there.
On the other side, however, democratic politics, both in the small sense and the large sense, cannot survive within an authoritarian world view. Here again, gun violence might provide a case in point. Again, it might reasonably be assumed that both the conservative and liberal parties favor a reduction in gun violence, and one might discuss the best means available to effectuate such a reduction, but one can do so ONLY so long and ONLY so far as it doesn't contravene the central authority -- in this case, the constitution, read literally and interpreted conservatively -- thou shalt not limit my ability to keep and bear arms. This might be called a "constitutional world view" is drawn up into the "biblical world view," and shares the same attitudinal and intellectual insistence that "reality" and the "authority" must comport. Any limitation on anyone's right to bear arms must be vigorously opposed, not because such limitations might be ineffective in the effort to reduce gun violence, but because such limitations are forbidden by the central authority. Any evidence that might contravene the dictates of that authority is either suppressed -- hence the congressional limitations on the use of federal funds for gun violence research -- or dismissed out of hand -- "it's not guns that kill people. It's people that kill people."
One might adduce any number of cynical "reasons" to support either side of the debate. The democrats will tend to look for "real reasons" within the observational world view outside the authoritarian world view -- e.g. the "real reason" the NRA has supported the right to keep and bear arms has more to do with the gun manufacturer's ability to reap profits from the sale of guns than the constitution. The gun manufacturers all share a common goal, improved profits, and the NRA is simply lobbying against restrictions that might impede their ability to make profits on the sale of certain arms. Also, given that the sale of arms goes up after a mass shooting, even more cynically one might suggest that they accept a certain level of collateral societal damage because it facilitates their ability to make profits on the sale of certain arms. There may be some truth in this, but conservatives will tend to look for "real reasons" from within the authoritarian world view outside the observational world view -- e.g. the "real reason" that democrats want to limit the right to bear arms in order to render the forces of good defenseless against the forces of evil. Implicit to, and driven by an authoritarian world view, is a "siege" mentality. The forces of good, the social stability arising from a disciplined obedience to the "true" authority, are always under siege by the forces of evil, those who would disrupt the prevailing social stability, whether from sheer willful perversity or from the desire to usurp the true authority for a false authority. One must, that is, have a gun handy to fortify one's self against the robbers and rapists that would steal one's goods and defile one's daughters. At the further extreme, even more cynically, one must have a gun handy to fortify one's self against those who would oppose the "true authority" and impose a "false authority" on the populace.
Implicit to both the "observational" and the "authoritarian" world view are differing, and irreconcilable, views of social order. The "observational" world view sees social order arising out of common goals and the values they reflect. Although discussion around the best available means to effectuate those goals may grow disputatious, even chaotic, in the end order is maintained by the glue of common goals and the values they reflect -- in enlightenment terms, the enlightened self-interest of the people. There is an historical and "progressive" aspect to the "observational" world view. On the one hand, during periods of relative stability, one can assume a "continuous improvement" in the means available to effectuate common goals. On the other hand, during periods of relative instability, the goals and the values they reflect themselves may grow disputatious. The social upheaval during the 60s and early 70s around civil rights for minorities and women are something of a case in point. For those who hold an "observational" world view, the upheaval simply raises the ante. The common goal becomes the search for a new set of common goals and values, and once found, it can be assumed that the new goals and values are "better," that minorities and women should be afforded equal rights, and work can begin anew on the best available means to effectuate those goals.
The "authoritarian" world view, however, sees social order arising solely out of obedience to the given authority and the mandated values. It might be assumed that those who hold "authoritarian" world views live in the real world, and there might be some dispute around how best to maintain obedience to the given authority and implement the mandated values, but in the end order is maintained by an enforced obedience to authority -- in Hobbesian terms, the enforced will of the sovereign. There is an historical aspect to the "authoritarian" world view, as well, but it is less "progressive," more "successive." During periods of relative stability, one can assume "continuity" and the orderly succession of sovereigns who maintain the existing alignments -- in particular, the existing alignments between secular and religious authority. On the other hand, during periods of social upheaval, the existing alignments are disrupted. The social upheaval during the 60s and early 70s again provide a case in point. For those who hold an "authoritarian" world view, the existing racial and gender alignments were called into question and disrupted. Such circumstances might result in a new set of alignments, but more often they result what "authoritarians" feel as "social disintegration" and the call for a new sovereign, a new "authority," one sufficient to exact obedience and "reset" the alignments.
I am suggesting, of course, that the current election cycle has settled out to be a contest between the "observational" and the "authoritarian" world view. Since at least the Bill Clinton era, there was an emergent core economic consensus around what might be called a neo-liberal agenda, best exemplified by his welfare reforms domestically and his support of trade agreements internationally. There was plenty of room for disagreement about how best to implement the neo-liberal agenda -- the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 being a case in point. It reduced taxes on the low income earners and small business while raising taxes on the so-called 1%, much to the chagrin of the Republicans, who would have preferred cuts to entitlement programs over taxes on the rich, but in the end there was a consensus on the core, free-market issues of "personal responsibility" and the "reassertion of America's work ethic" within an increasingly global, increasingly tech-driven, increasingly finance-driven corporate economy. Whether or not Clinton is on the payroll of wall street is debatable, but her commitment to the core values of the neo-liberal economic agenda of "personal responsibility" within a free-market economy seems clear enough. Had the contest settled out to Clinton against Kaisch, for example, the terms of the Democratic/Republican debate would not have changed since the time of the first Clinton. To what extent do we tax the rich to maintain (or expand) the existing social safety net programs? To what extend do we "reform" social safety net programs to reduce "welfare dependency" and over-all spending? In either case, the military and its role as "protector" of the "stability" necessary to global capitalism remained sacrosanct.
Sander's populism challenged the neo-liberal consensus that had centered the Republican/Democratic debate. It is difficult to support "personal responsibility" when there's a diminishing "work opportunity" for a growing majority of Americans within that same tech-driven, finance-driven global corporate economy. Moreover, if one relinquishes (or at least shares in more substantive ways) what appears to be the interminable and "no-win" US role as the "protector" of global capitalism, then the enormous expense associated with our foreign interventions could be put to better use. In either case, Sander's populism remained fixed within an "observational" frame of reality. There is plenty of "observational" evidence to suggest that the disparities of wealth are growing, that "opportunities" are not based on merit or "one's work ethic," that free international markets have displaced wages away from the US, et cetera. There is also plenty of "observational" evidence to suggest that our military interventions on behalf of "stability" have been "counter-productive," particularly in the fight against terrorism. They may have removed the likes of bin Laden, but they have recreated and exacerbated the conditions that led to his emergence, et cetera. In short, Sander's populism may have challenged the neo-liberal consensus, but it did not challenge the basic enlightenment assumptions behind "observational" reality. He was simply (simply?) suggesting that the time had come for a re-examination of the "neo-liberal" consensus and a re-instatement of the core values and principles of the "social democratic" consensus that had emerged during the FDR era. We go on from there.
Trump's populism, however, represents something quite different. The much quoted line from his convention speech -- "death, destruction, terrorism, and weakness" -- represents an pure appeal to an authoritarian world view. In "The twisted genius of Trump: His dark fantasy of a coronation speech was dangerously effective," a recent Salon article by Chauncy Devega, a similar point is made. Trump paints an apocalyptic view of the American social order, one shared by many who feel the "true" authority that had governed American has been displaced by a "false" authority, and then presents himself as the messianic figure, the authority who can exact obedience and reset the alignments. As a bit of an aside, it is significant that Ted Cruz mounted the most effective challenge to Trump. Although he is clearly not as charismatic as Trump, he nevertheless shared the same sense of apocalyptic America, where the "true" biblical authority had been displaced by a "false" secular authority, and he was offering himself as the one who could re-instate the true biblical authority and "free America from" the demon secularism. Although Ben Caron's "lucifer" comments have received considerable derision, he is touching on the same truth. The forces of good, represented by disciplined obedience to biblical authority, have been challenged by the forces of evil, represented by the secularism that would flaunt, for example, gay rights and transgender service "men?" If one imagines the world to be a constant Miltonic loop of the great battle between God and Lucifer that animates Paradise Lost, then Clinton and Ailes ARE aligned with Lucifer, the opposing forces that would usurp god's "true" authority and install an "all too human" authority of their own.
Trump, as it were, trumped the religious right. He played not only the biblical card, with his winking at the evangelicals, his sudden unconvincing conversion to (as Samantha Bee puts it) the "little cracker," and his selection of Pence as his running mate, but he also played the "race card." Cruz had the distinct disadvantage of being hispanic, Carson the even greater disadvantage of being black, but you cannot get more "white" than Trump, and his winking at and retweeting of racist memes from white supremacist web-sites signals a shared belief. The true "white" authority that had governed America from its inception had been displaced by a false "black" authority. One can challenge Obama's economic or foreign policy, but the visceral hatred of Obama, the persistent belief that he must be aligned with the dark forces of "islamic terrorism" despite his repeated military attacks on terrorist strongholds and strongmen, the fox news hysteria that he is destroying America with malice aforethought despite rising employment and wages, that America is a dangerous place despite falling crime rates, et cetera, is ultimately explained by the simple fact that he represents a false "black" authority that has usurped the true "white" authority. No amount of evidence can over-turn this core belief. No change of policy can over-turn this core belief. Trump alone can "make America great again," not because we suffer under unbearable burdens, not because policy prescriptions can make us "better." Trump will make America great again by simply imposing himself on the American people. Of all the candidates, as Devega put it, Trump alone, like an avenging Batman, "can save the besieged (white) people of Gotham from rampaging gangs, hoards of illegal immigrants who 'roam' the streets, Mexican rapists, black street thugs, and other criminals."
Moreover, Trump has one more advantage -- a penis. My wife has said on a number of occasions that she is disappointed that Hillary Clinton might be our first woman president, and I have to admit that I too am a bit disappointed. Although Lora reacts to the notion of dynastic politics -- another Clinton? -- my own concerns are more along the lines of the Bernie or Bust folks, that she represents "more of the same" and will not significantly challenge the neo-liberal economic and social welfare consensus. Having said that, however, as I've implied above, within the "authoritarian" world view, authority must be authority over something, and every notable distinction creates a call for placement on the hierarchy of authority ranging from the lowest to the highest. If the black/white distinction calls for black subservience to white authority, the male/female distinction calls for female subservience to male authority. In the authoritarian world view, it is difficult to maintain a distinction without a difference -- racial and gender equality. If the distinction is valid, one side of the divide must be in authority over the other. Moreover, those in authority must guard against miscreants on the other side of the divide, those jealous of the existing hierarchy, those attempting to usurp authority. Clinton represents "more of the same" in another way as well. Although she is clearly white and clearly christian (despite Trumps dark musings to the contrary) she has the distinct disadvantage of having a vagina. If Obama represents a false "black" authority, Clinton will represent a false "female" authority. While there are evidence based reasons to distrust Clinton, the current array of buttons and stickers available for sale proclaiming "turn America into hell, vote Hillary" or "life's a bitch, don't vote for one" perhaps say it all. As reported by Salon, "professional right-wing conspiracy generator — and fervent Donald Trump supporter — Alex Jones, who reportedly received a 'special guest' credential at the Republican National Convention last week" has gone so far as to call her a witch, evoking another era in American life that too perhaps says it all. She will represents a false "female" authority that has usurped the true "male" authority. No amount of successful policy work will over-turn this core belief. Trump alone can "make America great again," not because Clinton's policy prescriptions will be unsuccessful. Trump will make America great again by simply imposing himself, suitably equipped with a large white penis, on the American people.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Saturday, July 16, 2016
Trump Redux
Last night I began wondering "what if the unthinkable happens and Trump becomes president?" Before I answer that I should perhaps think through what would happen if Clinton becomes president, and after much consideration, the best answer I can give is "nothing unusual." Everything would go on pretty much usual, Fox News would still have a target for its outrage and outrageous hyperbole, each and every progressive agenda item from health care to climate change would be resisted and subverted within congress, and the so-called war on terror would continue more or less unabated as it has now for over a decade. There would be stewardship, one suspects, but little to inspire the change necessary to a new future. Even the scandals would have an air of the familiar. Bill's philandering, really? Benghazi, really? Email, really?
Trump, however, IS something new, at least within the living memory of most, at least within presidential politics. There is something wearisome about Clinton's candidacy, but there is something that goes beyond worrisome about Trump's candidacy. Conservatives keep Clinton trapped within rather traditional ethical parsing-- e.g. she "lied" about the emails that bore some classification and were passed through her private server, rendering her unfit to handle classified information and consequently unfit to be president. Those same conservatives, however, have placed Trump outside anything that might resemble traditional ethical parsing. Politifact, FactCheck, and even some traditional news sources like the Washington Post have attempted, to little avail, to bring the contest back into a more traditional calculation. The latter, for example, has noted that "Clinton has a bell curve of a typical politician. The number of false claims equals the number of true claims, while her other claims fall mostly somewhere in the middle." On the other hand, "85 percent of Trump’s claims that we vetted were false or mostly false." They go on to say, "The volume of his false claims is extraordinary, especially because he so often repeats them. He continued to say that he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when that never happened. He repeatedly says he opposed the Iraq war from the start, when that’s false. He constantly says the Islamic State terrorist group controls the oil in Libya, when that’s wrong. He routinely inflates the unemployment rate from 4.9 percent to as high as 42 percent." And yet he opposes "crooked Hillary."
Trump's candidacy represents in many ways the apotheosis of the Nietzchian candidate, the self-proclaimed superman who transcends the traditional ethical categories of good and evil, and so it just doesn't matter whether he tells the truth or lies. Or, perhaps more precisely, it just doesn't matter if he invents an alternative "truth" whole cloth. In an article "Donald Trump's Weaponized Platform," Paul Rosenberg of Salon has a conversation with Bruce Wilson of Talk to Action. On Talk to Action, Wilson publishes a photo of a smiling Trump, with the characteristic thumbs up gesture, standing next to William S. Lind, and suggests that Trump may be more in thrall with (or at the very least aligned with) Lind's thinking than has yet been reported. Nearly all of Trump's policy positions, and his actions, are aligned with the writing of Lind, who believes "the current republican party is intellectually vacuous, and that the current conservatism is 'rubbish' and filled with ‘I’ve got mine’ smugness.'" Of course, Trump begins with the "I've got mine smugness," even adds emphasis to it, but he then immediately undercuts it by announcing the worst suspicion of the most die hard progressive -- that he, as a rich man, has bought and sold the politicians standing next to him on the debate stage. Lind also believes "Republicans (along with Democrats) have aided the deindustrialization of America and the dispossession of the middle class, wasted the national treasure on idiotic wars (such as in Iraq) and enabled the dramatic expansion of repressive federal power" -- all of which could have been drawn from either Sander's or Trump's stump speeches, with the exception of the "repressive federal power," and therein lies the rub. Perhaps the epitome of the "I've got mine" elite, Jeb Bush, cannot continue to editorialize that "we need House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and others to retain this important check on the power of the White House and federal bureaucracy, no matter who wins the presidency," without raising the question of just how federal power is repressive, and without accepting the complicity of his own family in the exercise and expansion of that federal power -- their contribution to the trade agreements that off-shored labor, their eagerness to engage in foreign wars, et cetera.
But wait, as Ron Popeil might say, there's more! Lind's thinking is more subtle than the traditional neo-nationalist, but it is nevertheless closely aligned. As Wilson goes on to characterize Lind:
There is a bit of the "counter-conspiracy conspiracy theory" tone to Wilson's writing, but one wonders how to escape that trap. Scaminaci, referenced above, writes about the "epistemological break with reality" within the christian right. There is nothing surprising in their position that "the christian nationalist leadership believes that liberalism is an attack on christianity," or that "fundamentalist christains must recognize this, remove themselves as best as possible from the institutions and world views of liberalism, and ultimately destroy the liberal state." As Scaminaci goes on to write, the "epistemological break," has three aspects. The first concerns the "biblical worldview," a world view that runs parallel and in opposition to the "secular enlightenment worldview," one that sees the bible as the inerrant truth of god, applicable to all "political, economic, social, and scientific situations." They have created infrastructures that "manufacture their own 'facts' and 'scientific theories' in an effort to provide a veneer of 'scientific legitimacy' buttressing their predetermined theological/ideological positions -- one need only think of creationist/intelligent design and the attempt to place text-books in schools advocating that theological/ideological position. And finally, of course, in order to remove themselves from the perverting influence of the "liberal state," they place themselves in "information bubbles" that continuously hammer home their theological/ideological world view. Of course, this no more represents the world view of all christians than the radical islamists represent the world view of all muslims, but it is a "radicalizing" agenda, and one sees, in both Cruz' and Trump's candidacy, the influence of people like Lind, like Christian Reconstructionism and New Apostolic Reformation, like Seven Mountain Dominionism, as they push "the right wing of the American Political spectrum -- from the Republican party to the hard-right white nationalists."
I suggest that Trump, however, is more Nietzschian than Christian, more Zarathustra than a worshipper of Jesus, or for that matter a worshipper of anything but Trump. Though he is perfectly willing, as the Cheeto Jesus, to wink at the hard-right christian nationalists, and Trump will use them as they in turn use Trump. So, what if this self-proclaimed "superman" is elected to the presidency of the US? What then? Well, in one sense, nothing. Despite all his winking in rather obvious ways at various white supremacist groups, electing Trump to the presidency will not change the demographic composition of this country. The black population will still be approximately 38.9 million or about 13% of the population. The hispanic population will still be approximately 50.5 million or about 16% of the population. Building a wall on the border and deporting "illegals" might stem the growth of the hispanic population, some, but it will also stem the growth of the population period. According to the census bureau, "The rise in the Hispanic population accounted for more than half of the 27.3 million increase in the total U.S. population." In the meantime, you have the Washington Post headlining that the "Majority of Americans Think Race Relations are Getting Worse." There seems to be broad consensus that they are bad, and getting worse, but as they go on to report, "the common ground ends there, according to follow-up interviews with those who took part in the survey. There is no gathering consensus on how to solve the issue or who is to blame." The racial divide will continue to exist, and will likely continue to grow worse.
But wait, as Ron Popeil might say, there's more! Lind's thinking is more subtle than the traditional neo-nationalist, but it is nevertheless closely aligned. As Wilson goes on to characterize Lind:
In early Spring 2016, Donald Trump appears to have met a man whose 2009 book anticipated most of Donald Trump's key campaign positions. That man has disseminated over the Internet "extremist information" that inspired an even deadlier massacre than the 2016 Orlando, Florida mass shooting -- a meticulously planned 2011 neo-Nazi terrorist attack which killed 77, wounded 319, and shook Europe, an attack intended as a "marketing method" to promote that man's conspiracy theory concerning an alleged plot behind "political correctness", said to have been launched nearly a century ago by Jewish Marxists, to destroy America and Western Christian civilization.
That man has suggested his ideas on non-traditional "Fourth Generation" warfare (4GW) may have inspired the strategy behind al-Qaeda's 2001 terrorist attacks on America.
He has also provided, according to sociologist and authority on the Tea Party and the American militia movement Dr. James Scaminaci, the "blueprint for the development of the patriot militia movement" which hopes to one day overthrow federal authority; and in a key 1989 article that may have inspired al-Qaeda, he forecast that "The next real war we fight is likely to be on American soil." In 2014, he published a novel depicting such a war, that starts in 2020, in which white Christian militias overthrow the federal government and carry out the ethnic cleansing of American cities.
There is a bit of the "counter-conspiracy conspiracy theory" tone to Wilson's writing, but one wonders how to escape that trap. Scaminaci, referenced above, writes about the "epistemological break with reality" within the christian right. There is nothing surprising in their position that "the christian nationalist leadership believes that liberalism is an attack on christianity," or that "fundamentalist christains must recognize this, remove themselves as best as possible from the institutions and world views of liberalism, and ultimately destroy the liberal state." As Scaminaci goes on to write, the "epistemological break," has three aspects. The first concerns the "biblical worldview," a world view that runs parallel and in opposition to the "secular enlightenment worldview," one that sees the bible as the inerrant truth of god, applicable to all "political, economic, social, and scientific situations." They have created infrastructures that "manufacture their own 'facts' and 'scientific theories' in an effort to provide a veneer of 'scientific legitimacy' buttressing their predetermined theological/ideological positions -- one need only think of creationist/intelligent design and the attempt to place text-books in schools advocating that theological/ideological position. And finally, of course, in order to remove themselves from the perverting influence of the "liberal state," they place themselves in "information bubbles" that continuously hammer home their theological/ideological world view. Of course, this no more represents the world view of all christians than the radical islamists represent the world view of all muslims, but it is a "radicalizing" agenda, and one sees, in both Cruz' and Trump's candidacy, the influence of people like Lind, like Christian Reconstructionism and New Apostolic Reformation, like Seven Mountain Dominionism, as they push "the right wing of the American Political spectrum -- from the Republican party to the hard-right white nationalists."
I suggest that Trump, however, is more Nietzschian than Christian, more Zarathustra than a worshipper of Jesus, or for that matter a worshipper of anything but Trump. Though he is perfectly willing, as the Cheeto Jesus, to wink at the hard-right christian nationalists, and Trump will use them as they in turn use Trump. So, what if this self-proclaimed "superman" is elected to the presidency of the US? What then? Well, in one sense, nothing. Despite all his winking in rather obvious ways at various white supremacist groups, electing Trump to the presidency will not change the demographic composition of this country. The black population will still be approximately 38.9 million or about 13% of the population. The hispanic population will still be approximately 50.5 million or about 16% of the population. Building a wall on the border and deporting "illegals" might stem the growth of the hispanic population, some, but it will also stem the growth of the population period. According to the census bureau, "The rise in the Hispanic population accounted for more than half of the 27.3 million increase in the total U.S. population." In the meantime, you have the Washington Post headlining that the "Majority of Americans Think Race Relations are Getting Worse." There seems to be broad consensus that they are bad, and getting worse, but as they go on to report, "the common ground ends there, according to follow-up interviews with those who took part in the survey. There is no gathering consensus on how to solve the issue or who is to blame." The racial divide will continue to exist, and will likely continue to grow worse.
Despite Trump's pandering to the dispossessed white voter -- those who feel their privileged status within the middle class slipping away -- dispensing with NAFTA and the TPP are unlikely to change broad economic trends. Manufacturing, and the broad spectrum of union wage jobs it supported, will never return. On the demise of the trade agreements that made it "cost-effective" to off-shore labor, manufacturing itself might return, but it will be a manufacturing dominated, not by labor, which is increasingly unnecessary in a world of CNC and 3D printers, but by more managerial "engineers" and "technocrats." These jobs will be "middle" and "upper-middle" class, but almost by definition, there will be fewer of them. All will require substantive up-front investments in education. Although tepid job growth for the under-educated may continue in the service sectors, one can expect the "quality" of those jobs will continue to diminish. Fewer will "support" a family much beyond the poverty level and few will provide "benefits" of any substance. In the meantime, the neo-liberal or conservative economic agenda, which Trump broadly supports, calls for a deregulation of finance and cuts to taxes, particularly taxes on the rich. This will inevitably come at the cost of social services that many Americans have come to rely on. Salon, for example, reports that "sociologists Mark Robert Rank, Thomas Hirschl and Kirk Foster [in Chasing the American Dream] argue that the American experience is more fluid than both liberals and conservatives believe." They show that many Americans have temporary bouts of affluence, but they also have temporary bouts of poverty, unemployment and welfare use." They conclude that the majority of Americans do not exclusively fall into the categories of "makers" nor "takers." Most are both, and for those "makers" that experience temporary bouts of poverty, "the social safety net catches them, and they get back on their feet." As the experiment in Kansas has also demonstrated, the neo-liberal tax agenda also degrades tax sponsorship of both primary, secondary and higher education, the very thing needed to prepare workers for those new "information age" jobs. Unless there are major structural changes to the economic status quo -- unless that is there is a major re-distribution of wealth either through wages or through the social safety net or both, the erosion of the middle-class will continue, the economic divide will grow wider, and will likely grow even worse.
Despite too Trump's bellicose pandering to the xenophobia of his base, his election will not change world politics. As one example, the problem of terrorism escalates despite military success, some will say because of military success. ISIS is all but defeated on the battlefield, and yet, within the last couple of days, yet another terror attack in Paris. As it was the mass shooting in the Pulse nightclub, so it is with the mass killing in Nice, the perpetrator seemed to be acting alone, motivated by his own set of demons, without the direct sponsorship of a nation state or even a "rebel group" contending against a nation state. It is, in other words, not an act of war, if we understand war to be state sponsored violence, but rather a criminal act that seems impossible to predict. On the Orlando shooting, the Washington Post reports, that he at least was "radicalized" to the extent that he sanctified his killing spree by claiming allegiance to ISIS, but as reported by the Washington Post, "a month later, though, a complete picture of what motivated Mateen remains murky and may never be known since he was killed in a shootout with police and did not leave a manifesto." On the Nice killing, although the Islamic-State-connected Amaq news agency cited an 'insider source' saying that Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31, 'was a soldier of the Islamic State,'” but it "remained unclear whether the Islamic State had directed the attack, whether they were taking responsibility for an attack that they may have inspired, or whether they were simply seeking publicity from an attack entirely disconnected from them." It would seem that, to prevent such attacks, one would need to take action against an entire religious group, action of the sort advocated by Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who upped the ante on Trump's ban on entering Muslims and "responded to Thursday night’s truck attack in France by arguing for the expulsion from the U.S. of any Muslim who believes in Sharia law." It is unclear, however, what "belief" might mean, and as Obama rightly suggested, that the "suggestion of a religious test "repugnant and an affront to everything we stand for as Americans." Nevertheless, the present course of action is ineffectual, and unless we do something "different," the problem of terrorism will persist, and will likely grow worse.
I am merely suggesting that we will not magically awake to a new, problem free world if Trump is elected. What exactly will Trump do to address these problems? At the moment, Trump has one clear advantage over Obama and Clinton -- that is to say, Obama IS in power and Clinton HAS BEEN in power. They have been in positions to actually DO something, but because they have done something, their actions are open to scrutiny and critique. As one witness to the attack in Nice said, “'We now realize that there was no protection for us,'" and of course he is correct, almost by definition, "there was no protection" against the attack that was committed. The key, however, is the "we now realize." Hindsight is 20/20, and one can apply the formulation "we now realize" to almost any situation. We now realize more should have been done with airport security to prevent an attack like 9/11. We now realize more should have been done with embassy security to prevent an attack like that at Benghazi. We now realize that the FBI investigations into the Orlando shooter failed to pick up on his real threat. We now realize ... I would probably suggest that the problems listed above are intractable, and there are other intractable problems that have not been listed. None will lend themselves to simplistic or immediate solutions. All attempts to address them will be inadequate and because inadequate, always "arguable." Once he acts, however, there will be winners and losers, and the losers will protest. On international relations, it doesn't take a "big brain" to suggest that there will be another terror attack. Just as Bush's repose was inadequate and open to criticism, just as Obama's response was inadequate and open to criticism, Trump's actions will be inadequate and will lend itself to "we now realize" second guessing.
So long as we have free speech, so long as we have a free press, such "we now realize" second guessing is a part of a free society. Indeed, one might even go so far as to say that it is the bedrock on which a free society is built, because, however imperfectly, it holds leadership at least somewhat accountable to the people they ostensibly serve. One thing, however, does set Trump apart -- his adversity to criticism. There are, of course, the bans on the Huffington Post and the Washington Post, his attack on the judge hearing his Trump University case, but even more recently, there is the law suit against a former staffer. As reported by Talking Points Memo, "Donald Trump is seeking $10 million from a former aide he accused of leaking confidential information about a public spat between two senior campaign staffers, the Associated Press reported Wednesday. Trump claimed that fired campaign consultant Sam Nunberg went to the press with confidential information in violation of a nondisclosure agreement, which the real estate mogul requires nearly all staffers for his campaign and businesses to sign." What makes us believe that a president Donald Trump will be any less averse to criticism, that he will not take steps to silence it, that those steps will not be an "abuse of power" and subversive of the constitution that he will swear to defend? Writing about his vacillation over his vice presidential pick -- a vacillation that, by the way, works against the narrative of his being a strong, decisive leader -- Josh Marshall writes that "coming into the orbit of Mr Trump, taking his yoke as it were, requires not only total submission, a total relaxation of every muscle and defense but a farewell to all independence and dignity." He cites as evidence the submission and humiliation of Gingrich, but especially that of Chris Christie, who has suffered a long list of indignities. What makes us believe he will not treat the people of the US in much the same way, particularly those who do not "fit" his "brand" of conservatism, those who do not see him as the representative man, those he labels "haters?" His behavior at the rallies suggests that he would gleefully "punch them in the face," and a presidential punch is likely to have some real impact.
Jeb Bush is correct in one important respect. The "checks on the power of the White House" will be important if Clinton is elected. They will be even more important if Trump is elected, but they will be more difficult to sustain. Many of his policy "attitudes" show him to be at the very least cavalier with the inherent constitutional checks on power, on his power. Worse though, he has not only cynically adopted the traditional republican small-government antipathy to federal power, but has adopted the antipathy that many feel toward "elites," particularly the "economic elites." His winking at various hard-right extremist groups, his adoption of Lind's policy positions on "political correctness," his virulent anti-immigration rhetoric, all lend some credence to the alarmism implicit in counter-conspiracy conspiracy theories. Like many who have stepped to the right of the republican party -- or at least that party represented by Jeb Bush -- there is much to lend some credence to the notion that he wants to overthrow existing party structures of authority, even existing ("rigged" or "corrupt") federal structures of authority, and replace it with what? His authority.
I am merely suggesting that we will not magically awake to a new, problem free world if Trump is elected. What exactly will Trump do to address these problems? At the moment, Trump has one clear advantage over Obama and Clinton -- that is to say, Obama IS in power and Clinton HAS BEEN in power. They have been in positions to actually DO something, but because they have done something, their actions are open to scrutiny and critique. As one witness to the attack in Nice said, “'We now realize that there was no protection for us,'" and of course he is correct, almost by definition, "there was no protection" against the attack that was committed. The key, however, is the "we now realize." Hindsight is 20/20, and one can apply the formulation "we now realize" to almost any situation. We now realize more should have been done with airport security to prevent an attack like 9/11. We now realize more should have been done with embassy security to prevent an attack like that at Benghazi. We now realize that the FBI investigations into the Orlando shooter failed to pick up on his real threat. We now realize ... I would probably suggest that the problems listed above are intractable, and there are other intractable problems that have not been listed. None will lend themselves to simplistic or immediate solutions. All attempts to address them will be inadequate and because inadequate, always "arguable." Once he acts, however, there will be winners and losers, and the losers will protest. On international relations, it doesn't take a "big brain" to suggest that there will be another terror attack. Just as Bush's repose was inadequate and open to criticism, just as Obama's response was inadequate and open to criticism, Trump's actions will be inadequate and will lend itself to "we now realize" second guessing.
So long as we have free speech, so long as we have a free press, such "we now realize" second guessing is a part of a free society. Indeed, one might even go so far as to say that it is the bedrock on which a free society is built, because, however imperfectly, it holds leadership at least somewhat accountable to the people they ostensibly serve. One thing, however, does set Trump apart -- his adversity to criticism. There are, of course, the bans on the Huffington Post and the Washington Post, his attack on the judge hearing his Trump University case, but even more recently, there is the law suit against a former staffer. As reported by Talking Points Memo, "Donald Trump is seeking $10 million from a former aide he accused of leaking confidential information about a public spat between two senior campaign staffers, the Associated Press reported Wednesday. Trump claimed that fired campaign consultant Sam Nunberg went to the press with confidential information in violation of a nondisclosure agreement, which the real estate mogul requires nearly all staffers for his campaign and businesses to sign." What makes us believe that a president Donald Trump will be any less averse to criticism, that he will not take steps to silence it, that those steps will not be an "abuse of power" and subversive of the constitution that he will swear to defend? Writing about his vacillation over his vice presidential pick -- a vacillation that, by the way, works against the narrative of his being a strong, decisive leader -- Josh Marshall writes that "coming into the orbit of Mr Trump, taking his yoke as it were, requires not only total submission, a total relaxation of every muscle and defense but a farewell to all independence and dignity." He cites as evidence the submission and humiliation of Gingrich, but especially that of Chris Christie, who has suffered a long list of indignities. What makes us believe he will not treat the people of the US in much the same way, particularly those who do not "fit" his "brand" of conservatism, those who do not see him as the representative man, those he labels "haters?" His behavior at the rallies suggests that he would gleefully "punch them in the face," and a presidential punch is likely to have some real impact.
Jeb Bush is correct in one important respect. The "checks on the power of the White House" will be important if Clinton is elected. They will be even more important if Trump is elected, but they will be more difficult to sustain. Many of his policy "attitudes" show him to be at the very least cavalier with the inherent constitutional checks on power, on his power. Worse though, he has not only cynically adopted the traditional republican small-government antipathy to federal power, but has adopted the antipathy that many feel toward "elites," particularly the "economic elites." His winking at various hard-right extremist groups, his adoption of Lind's policy positions on "political correctness," his virulent anti-immigration rhetoric, all lend some credence to the alarmism implicit in counter-conspiracy conspiracy theories. Like many who have stepped to the right of the republican party -- or at least that party represented by Jeb Bush -- there is much to lend some credence to the notion that he wants to overthrow existing party structures of authority, even existing ("rigged" or "corrupt") federal structures of authority, and replace it with what? His authority.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
The Great American Lie
Trump's campaign slogan raises some questions that have not really been discussed -- at least not in my awareness. To "Make American Great Again" implies that America was once great, but is no longer. It also implies that it can be redeemed and brought to greatness again. For Trump, who is nothing if not a classic narcissist, the redemption comes through him and his election. America will be "great" again if it sets aside the current president, and all that he represents, for him. One suspects that, for Trump, and perhaps his followers, it is that simple -- elect a "great leader" and the country will be "great again." At one level, as Emerson put it, "it is natural to believe in great men," and Trump has supplied us with the narrative that allows us to follow our instincts and believe him "great." He is, or so he would have us believe, deservedly rich, having earned, if not his initial stake in the game, at least the pot he has raked in over the course of his life. He is naturally endowed with those attributes that have contributed to his success, not least his self-professed big brain and big penis, but perhaps even more an attitude, a testosterone fueled unhesitating ruthlessness in the exercise of power. It is captured in a statement made by his publicist to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "Mr. Trump believes in putting your oxygen mask on first before helping others." Whether he actually did go on to help others may well prove to be irrelevant. Trump knows how to take care of himself, and though we are reluctant to admit it, we do hold a perverse fascination for those who can act indifferently, who can place themselves beyond the normal calculations of good and evil. Trump sincerely believes himself to be the "representative man," the exemplar of "greatness," and if America emulates him it will be as "great" as he is.
It's all a lie, a con, but it's a lie that we want, at times desperately want, to believe. My grand daughter is visiting, and we have been watching re-runs of "America's Got Talent." Each of the contestants is living a life, but they all "have a dream," and you can see it in many of their faces, the desperate need to believe that their "dream" can come true. Over and over and over again the judges emphasize that the "purpose" of the show is to provide a venue where that hidden talent, that hidden greatness, can be found and stardom achieved. To hear Simon Cowell tell a sobbing 13 year old that she will be the next Taylor Swift puts us in the moment and warms our hearts at her possibilities, but the likelihood of her winning the grand prize is small, and even if she does go on to win, the likelihood that she will become the next Taylor Swift is so minuscule as to be beyond measure. The names of Kenichi Ebina, Bianca Ryan, Landau Eugene Murphy, Mat Franco, and Olate Dogs -- past winners all -- are hardly top of mind for most Americans. The show does not exist in order to mine hidden talent, to give people "second chances" after adversity, much less to find the next Taylor Swift. In rare cases it may well actually do so, as a more or less accidental side-effect, but the show exists for an entirely different purpose, to further enrich those who have a "stake" in the game, and it only takes a moment's cynical reflection to realize that the contestants and their dreams are being used to fulfill that purpose. Nevertheless, as any con man will tell you, don't just tell a lie, tell a lie that people are desperate to believe, and both the contestants and those who watch them compete are desperate to believe in the fairy tale miracle.
I am dancing around the first of the great American lies, that our greatness as a nation resides in being "the land of opportunity." In one respect, both "The Apprentice" and "America's Got Talent," as reality shows, are standing metaphors for the great con. I have to confess that I have never watched "The Apprentice" for more than five minutes, and I'm not sure that I could. There is much about Donald Trump that is simply off-putting to me, but the premise of his show is clear enough and it's the same premise that animates much of "reality" TV. There is an "opportunity," whether it comes in the form of a year long $250,000 starting contract to run one of Trump's companies or in the form of one million dollars and a headline a show on the Las Vegas Strip. It probably goes without saying, but I will point out regardless that the "opportunity" is manufactured. It is real enough, insofar as the promise of a starting contract or a show on the Las Vegas Strip must be kept, but there is an element of "faux reality" in the opportunity. As the contest proceeds, the camera remains focused on the "winners" as they are celebrated and achieve their moment of celebrity. The camera turns away from the "fired" and "failed" contestants and we need no longer concern ourselves with them, the "losers" as they fade back into the obscurity of their lives. In the inexorable logic of the show, the winners deserve to win, the losers deserve to lose, and all is right with the world. If one takes a step back, however, one sees that both winners and losers are just elements in a game that has much higher stakes. While the contestants do have some control over their progress within the immediate game, the real game of the reality show is played outside the view of the camera, outside the control of the contestants, and it is utterly indifferent to the fates of the individual contestants. Regardless who wins or loses the immediate contest, they will win.
That social mobility in the US is a myth, but it is a core myth as persistent as religion for those engaged as contestants in the reality show of life. A Pew Research Center Study found that, attitudinally at least, Americans are an exception. They found that "fifty-seven percent of Americans disagree with the statement 'Success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control,' a considerably higher percentage than the global median of 38%." In other words, Americans believe that each of us, individually, are in control our destinies. If one were differentiate between conservatives and liberals, I suspect one would find that the average conservative places even greater faith in the myth that each of us controls his or her destiny, that we "make choices" and those insight and wisdom of those "choices" take us down the path to success. As the Pew Research Center goes on to point out, the principle "choice" is to "work hard." They suggest, that "similarly, Americans place an especially strong emphasis on the value of hard work – 73% think it is very important to work hard in order to get ahead in life, compared with a global median of 50%." In other words, each and every one of us has been given a talent, and it is entirely up to us whether we "work hard" to discover that talent, "work hard" to develop it, "work hard" to capitalize on it. One hears it in the voices of the reality show contestants -- for the winners, the elation that their "hard work" is finally "paying off"-- for the losers their sense of befuddled betrayal -- "but I worked so hard?"
There have been any number of studies to demonstrate that, as Business Insider put it, "Social Mobility is a Myth in the US" -- that one's choices and hard work may be a necessary factor in success, but they are not a sufficient factor. Drawing from one such study, they report that
If you were born in the bottom 20%, your chances of ending up in the top 20% are about one in 20: 5%. If you were born in the top 20%, your chances of ending up in the bottom 20% are about one in 20: 5%. It’s not entirely a hereditary aristocracy and hereditary serfs; but the circumstances, genes, and connections that a person is born with do have a marked impact in this country.
There are many such studies, and they all confirm more or less the same thing -- there is some chance that any given individual will be the winning contestant, and of course the winning 5% sustain the myth, hold forth the possibility that with talent and hard work one will rise in the world, will become a star -- and of course the losing 95% are simply ignored, or vilified. Drawing on another study, Salon is more forthcoming in their title, "The Myth Destroying America: Why Social Mobility is Beyond Ordinary People's Control." Drawing on the same Pew Center Research, Sean McElwee of Salon reports that this positive belief that each of us controls our destiny, that hard work has its rewards, "comes with a negative side — a tendency to pathologize those living in poverty. Indeed, 60 percent of Americans (compared with 26 percent of Europeans) say that the poor are lazy, and only 29 percent say those living in poverty are trapped in poverty by factors beyond their control (compared with 60 percent of Europeans)."
The Salon article is much more nuanced, and the book it reviews even more nuanced, and I would encourage those who are interested to read on, but for the moment it is, perhaps, enough to recognize that I am not denigrating hard work. I am simply suggesting again that hard work may be a necessary factor in one's success, but not a sufficient factor, particularly if relies on an income provided by others where hard work is a minimal condition. In my past life as an employer, more than once, I have heard the anguished betrayal in the voices of those passed over for a promotion, or those slighted on a "merit pay" bonus. They will explain that they "worked so hard," and I will have to explain in return that "hard work," whatever form it takes, is a minimal expectation. Everyone -- everyone -- is expected to work hard and most actually do work hard, or at the very least perceive themselves to be "hard workers." Those who received the promotion, those who got the bonus, also worked hard, but their hard work wasn't sufficient. Those who "succeeded" brought "something else" to the table that you didn't or couldn't. It gnawed at me that the "something else" was often well beyond the control of the one passed over. Very often, the one passed over would need to become "someone else" to have that "something else," and for most that simply isn't likely or possible. Then too, there was the simple fact that there were many applicants, often numbering in the hundreds, and only one position. Even if everything else were absolutely equal, and it rarely was, a choice would still need to be made and there would be a "winner" and a long line of invisible "losers."
That social mobility in the US is a myth, but it is a core myth as persistent as religion for those engaged as contestants in the reality show of life. A Pew Research Center Study found that, attitudinally at least, Americans are an exception. They found that "fifty-seven percent of Americans disagree with the statement 'Success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control,' a considerably higher percentage than the global median of 38%." In other words, Americans believe that each of us, individually, are in control our destinies. If one were differentiate between conservatives and liberals, I suspect one would find that the average conservative places even greater faith in the myth that each of us controls his or her destiny, that we "make choices" and those insight and wisdom of those "choices" take us down the path to success. As the Pew Research Center goes on to point out, the principle "choice" is to "work hard." They suggest, that "similarly, Americans place an especially strong emphasis on the value of hard work – 73% think it is very important to work hard in order to get ahead in life, compared with a global median of 50%." In other words, each and every one of us has been given a talent, and it is entirely up to us whether we "work hard" to discover that talent, "work hard" to develop it, "work hard" to capitalize on it. One hears it in the voices of the reality show contestants -- for the winners, the elation that their "hard work" is finally "paying off"-- for the losers their sense of befuddled betrayal -- "but I worked so hard?"
There have been any number of studies to demonstrate that, as Business Insider put it, "Social Mobility is a Myth in the US" -- that one's choices and hard work may be a necessary factor in success, but they are not a sufficient factor. Drawing from one such study, they report that
If you were born in the bottom 20%, your chances of ending up in the top 20% are about one in 20: 5%. If you were born in the top 20%, your chances of ending up in the bottom 20% are about one in 20: 5%. It’s not entirely a hereditary aristocracy and hereditary serfs; but the circumstances, genes, and connections that a person is born with do have a marked impact in this country.
There are many such studies, and they all confirm more or less the same thing -- there is some chance that any given individual will be the winning contestant, and of course the winning 5% sustain the myth, hold forth the possibility that with talent and hard work one will rise in the world, will become a star -- and of course the losing 95% are simply ignored, or vilified. Drawing on another study, Salon is more forthcoming in their title, "The Myth Destroying America: Why Social Mobility is Beyond Ordinary People's Control." Drawing on the same Pew Center Research, Sean McElwee of Salon reports that this positive belief that each of us controls our destiny, that hard work has its rewards, "comes with a negative side — a tendency to pathologize those living in poverty. Indeed, 60 percent of Americans (compared with 26 percent of Europeans) say that the poor are lazy, and only 29 percent say those living in poverty are trapped in poverty by factors beyond their control (compared with 60 percent of Europeans)."
The Salon article is much more nuanced, and the book it reviews even more nuanced, and I would encourage those who are interested to read on, but for the moment it is, perhaps, enough to recognize that I am not denigrating hard work. I am simply suggesting again that hard work may be a necessary factor in one's success, but not a sufficient factor, particularly if relies on an income provided by others where hard work is a minimal condition. In my past life as an employer, more than once, I have heard the anguished betrayal in the voices of those passed over for a promotion, or those slighted on a "merit pay" bonus. They will explain that they "worked so hard," and I will have to explain in return that "hard work," whatever form it takes, is a minimal expectation. Everyone -- everyone -- is expected to work hard and most actually do work hard, or at the very least perceive themselves to be "hard workers." Those who received the promotion, those who got the bonus, also worked hard, but their hard work wasn't sufficient. Those who "succeeded" brought "something else" to the table that you didn't or couldn't. It gnawed at me that the "something else" was often well beyond the control of the one passed over. Very often, the one passed over would need to become "someone else" to have that "something else," and for most that simply isn't likely or possible. Then too, there was the simple fact that there were many applicants, often numbering in the hundreds, and only one position. Even if everything else were absolutely equal, and it rarely was, a choice would still need to be made and there would be a "winner" and a long line of invisible "losers."
Monday, July 11, 2016
Fertilizer for Watermelons
Like many, I am unsure what to think of the gun violence in America. The recent shootings of two black men were captured on video and leave little room for question. Both were armed, but in the one case, Alton Sterling, where the actual shooting was captured on video, it was clear enough that he had been restrained and could not use his gun, even had he wanted to do so. Yet the call, "he has a gun" led almost immediately to the pop-pop-pop of gun shot heard in the video. In the other case, Philando Castile, it will remain forever unclear whether Castile was reaching for his gun, but given his background and the circumstances, there is plenty of room to doubt that he was doing so. Yet, we are told, “This had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the presence of the gun that Mr. Castile had,” Minneapolis attorney Thomas Kelly told Time magazine, adding that Yanez is “deeply saddened” for Castile’s family. I would imagine that, if they were around to be asked why they had the guns, both would have responded with "self-protection," but the gun did little to protect them and in both cases the mere presence of the gun led to their shooting.
In both cases, I do suspect it had quite a bit to do with the "presence of the gun," though not everything. It is one thing for a white man to carry a gun for "self-defense," quite another for a black man to do so. A white man has little reason to believe that he carries the gun in "self-defense" from the police and other legal authorities, unless he chooses to believe so. One thinks of Cliven Bundy in their armed occupation of federal land, brandishing weapons in "self-defense" against the government itself. According to CNN, he cited his faith in a speech to members of the socially conservative Independent American Party in St. George, Utah. "The Lord told me ... if (the sheriff doesn't) take away these arms (from federal agents), we the people will have to face these arms in a civil war. He said, 'This is your chance to straighten this thing up.' " Most white Americans, however, are not engaged in civil war against the government, and have little reason to believe that they must defend themselves against the police. The two videos mentioned above, however, along with a number of incidents in the recent past, do tend to reinforce the impression within the black community that they are under siege by the police, that a routine traffic stop could turn into what appeared to be an outright assassination. While there is a conspiracy laden paranoia fueling the likes of Cliven Bundy sense that he is engaged "in a civil war," there are the facts of daily life, captured on video, fueling the protests of Black Lives Matter and the sense that they are engaged "in a war of liberation." It is perhaps not surprising that we are again hearing the black panther party, not as an historical artifact, but as a resurgent presence urging racial violence to throw off the oppressor.
It is perhaps also not surprising that a troubled individual might take up the call, and five police officers at a peaceful protest were shot and killed by a sniper. While I'm sure that details will emerge surrounding the shooter here, just as the details emerged to surround the Orlando shooter, and they will likewise support a theory that a deeply troubled individual latched onto an extremist black nationalist point of view which provided not only an explanation for his inner turmoil, but also a path to glory denied him in a more quotidian reality. People seemed puzzled that he seemed dissatisfied with the Black Lives Matter movement, but one suspects, had he survived the robo-bomb blast that killed him, he would have said that peaceful protest was insufficient, that black people have to take up arms to end the oppression, that we are engaged in a civil war and must "straighten things up." He wanted to kill white people, no doubt, just as the shooter at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church wanted to kill black people, no doubt, and the details of his life too will support a theory that he was a deeply troubled individual who had latched onto an extremist white nationalist point of view which provided not only an explanation for his inner turmoil, but also the path to the "race war" that he hoped to ignite to "straighten things up." The modes of discourse fueling radical islamic terrorism are the mirror image of the modes of discourse fueling black against white violence. The modes of discourse fueling black against white violence are the mirror image of the modes of discourse fueling white against black violence. We are caught in the infinite regress of a tunnel of mirrors with no real escape.
While identity politics can be rational, revealing the inequities in the enlightenment happy state of "justice for all," for the most part it is pre-rational. I do not recall a pre-birth checklist where I had to select from the options of identity. There were no row of boxes labeled gay or straight, black or white, muslim culture or christian culture, male or female. I did not choose the attributes most significant to an identity politics -- a straight white male within a predominantly christian culture -- yet there you have it. Rationality implies the deliberation of choice, but if being a straight white male is all you need to know of me to vilify me, even worse to vilify me to the point of killing me, something has gone dreadfully wrong. It goes almost without saying, but the most extreme modes of discourse target, both literally and figuratively, those aspects of identity that come before choice and an anger inflamed hatred erase or distort any choices that might come after. On Breitbart, for example, ran an article headlined: "New Black Panthers and BlackLivesMatter activists protesting the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were arrested and weapons were confiscated Saturday evening in Baton Rouge, Louisiana." The article itself is mostly a series of videos supplied through Twitter feeds, but it's the comments that most interest me. One reader, or perhaps watcher, commented:
Its sad that most black Americans are so blinded by the victim narrative, hatred, and ignorance, they don't realize they traded one plantation for another. The democrats simply use them for votes now instead of in the fields. I know that might be a [sic] insensitive thing to say, but i [sic] know if the black population woke up and took a look at their culture, youth, and welfare dependency, then they would be outraged at the farce they've bought into for decades.
There's so much wrong with this comment that one hardly knows where to begin, and perhaps that's the fundamental problem. To point out one's "insensitivity," one's lack of empathy, doesn't excuse it. On the contrary, it exacerbates the problem and simply reveals the "insensitivity" as intentional. It just might be, perhaps, that the "black population" buys into the "victim narrative," because they have been subjected to hatred and ignorance. It just might be, perhaps, that the black population has looked at their "culture, youth, and welfare dependency" and discovered that it's inherent problems can be explained, if not wholly, at least in part, by the sorts of systemic racial injustice that leads to the sorts of shootings we are witnessing throughout the nation. It might just be, perhaps, that movements like the civil rights movements in the 60s and the current Black Lives Matter movements are attempts to rise above the "victim narrative," and assert their basic rights as Americans. It might just be, perhaps, that the more radical New Black Panthers are simply turning the tables, taking up arms to make the victimizers the victims, and capitalizing on their "chance to straighten things out."
I am not qualified to speak for the "black population," or for that matter individual black people. I cannot condone violence, and don't -- period -- and violence doesn't beget empathy, it begets more violence -- period. Had it ended there, given the acknowledgement of insensitivity, one might be able to engage in some discussion, enlarged the realm of his empathy, but of course it didn't end there. If one needed a tutorial in "hatred and ignorance," the continuing discussion provided one. Commenting on his comment, another writer wrote: "They are to much concerned about their next joint and whiskey to care. And it is sad! If their grand mothers of old were around, someone would get a switching to remember." To which another commenter wrote: "WRONG DUMBASS,,, THEIR GRANDMOTHERS TAUGHT THEM TO KILL WHITEY JERK OFF." And it escalates from there. Another commenter wrote: "They are to [sic] fuc*ing dumb and stupid to figure out that they are being used by Obama and Hillary. Obama and Hillary don't give a rat's ass about them. Obama and Hillary are just using them to bring in martial law. Afterwards, the dumb asses will be sent to the DHS camps." To which the previous commenter wrote: "THOSE IGNORANT YARD APES HAVE ZERO SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SKILLS ,, THEY ARE ONLY GOOD FOR ONE THING,,,, FERTILIZER FOR WATERMELONS" and again "THE NAGGERS ARE STUPID IMBECILES THEY WILL NEVER WAKE UP,, IN FACT THE WHITE MAN NEEDS TO PUT THEM ALL TO SLEEP,,, PERMANENTLY ! SMILE WAIT FOR FLASH COCONUT." One really can't engage in discussion or argumentation on the commenters core points because there are no core points. At basis, it's an affirmation of faith in white identity and a call to genocide against the "black population."
If I were persistent enough, I'm sure I would find black nationalist sites, comparable to white nationalist sites, that did issue comparable calls to violence, and it would be equally dispiriting. I did search the more "liberal" web sites (Salon, Huffington Post, et cetera) for a comparable call to violence, but I couldn't find it, at least not as immediately or as easily as I found it on the conservative Breitbart, which tends to indicate that it IS worse than I would want to believe. I am not the first to say this, but there is an asymmetry on the conservative side. Former congressman Joe Walsh, for example, took to twitter and wrote: "3 Dallas Cops killed, 7 wounded. This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out black lives matter punks. Real America is coming after you." Walsh later revealed that Twitter deleted the tweet." While we might be thankful that he is an ex-congressman, it nevertheless points at the degree to which ostensibly mainstream republicans and their leadership are aligned with what can only be called white nationalist thinking. While we might point out that Trump has taken a more "conciliatory tone" after the shootings, that doesn't quite qualify him to be a "racial healer." One doesn't have to dig far to find him "re-tweeting" broadly racist memes from white supremacist sites, which shows at the very least a propensity to believe the worst about the "black population." As reported by PolitiFact, "a day after a black activist was kicked and punched by voters at a Donald Trump rally in Alabama, Trump tweeted an image packed with racially loaded and incorrect murder statistics." I won't repeat the statistics, but again as reported by PolitiFact, the original tweet could be "traced the original image back to a Twitter stream that appears to originate in the United Kingdom and features a modified swatiska with the line 'Should have listened to the Austrian chap with the little mustache.'"
So, what happens if Trump is elected, if the mentality represented above prevails into something resembling power? I really don't know, but I do know that the "problem" and our developing "troubles" will not go away. I doubt that the "black population" of the US will simply bend to his attitudes in quite the same way that a corporate employee bends to the will of the CEO, nor will they be quite as compliant as the jewish population was for the "Austrian chap with the little mustache." The worst hopes of the likes of a Cliven Bundy, or the church shooter, might well be realized, and a form of "civil war" might well erupt. It will not be Obama who declares martial law and calls upon the national guard, and best case scenario, we will revisit the 60s and early 70s. The worst case scenario is something for dystopian, post-apocalyptic fiction, and I will leave it those with darker, more paranoid imaginations than my own.
In both cases, I do suspect it had quite a bit to do with the "presence of the gun," though not everything. It is one thing for a white man to carry a gun for "self-defense," quite another for a black man to do so. A white man has little reason to believe that he carries the gun in "self-defense" from the police and other legal authorities, unless he chooses to believe so. One thinks of Cliven Bundy in their armed occupation of federal land, brandishing weapons in "self-defense" against the government itself. According to CNN, he cited his faith in a speech to members of the socially conservative Independent American Party in St. George, Utah. "The Lord told me ... if (the sheriff doesn't) take away these arms (from federal agents), we the people will have to face these arms in a civil war. He said, 'This is your chance to straighten this thing up.' " Most white Americans, however, are not engaged in civil war against the government, and have little reason to believe that they must defend themselves against the police. The two videos mentioned above, however, along with a number of incidents in the recent past, do tend to reinforce the impression within the black community that they are under siege by the police, that a routine traffic stop could turn into what appeared to be an outright assassination. While there is a conspiracy laden paranoia fueling the likes of Cliven Bundy sense that he is engaged "in a civil war," there are the facts of daily life, captured on video, fueling the protests of Black Lives Matter and the sense that they are engaged "in a war of liberation." It is perhaps not surprising that we are again hearing the black panther party, not as an historical artifact, but as a resurgent presence urging racial violence to throw off the oppressor.
It is perhaps also not surprising that a troubled individual might take up the call, and five police officers at a peaceful protest were shot and killed by a sniper. While I'm sure that details will emerge surrounding the shooter here, just as the details emerged to surround the Orlando shooter, and they will likewise support a theory that a deeply troubled individual latched onto an extremist black nationalist point of view which provided not only an explanation for his inner turmoil, but also a path to glory denied him in a more quotidian reality. People seemed puzzled that he seemed dissatisfied with the Black Lives Matter movement, but one suspects, had he survived the robo-bomb blast that killed him, he would have said that peaceful protest was insufficient, that black people have to take up arms to end the oppression, that we are engaged in a civil war and must "straighten things up." He wanted to kill white people, no doubt, just as the shooter at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church wanted to kill black people, no doubt, and the details of his life too will support a theory that he was a deeply troubled individual who had latched onto an extremist white nationalist point of view which provided not only an explanation for his inner turmoil, but also the path to the "race war" that he hoped to ignite to "straighten things up." The modes of discourse fueling radical islamic terrorism are the mirror image of the modes of discourse fueling black against white violence. The modes of discourse fueling black against white violence are the mirror image of the modes of discourse fueling white against black violence. We are caught in the infinite regress of a tunnel of mirrors with no real escape.
While identity politics can be rational, revealing the inequities in the enlightenment happy state of "justice for all," for the most part it is pre-rational. I do not recall a pre-birth checklist where I had to select from the options of identity. There were no row of boxes labeled gay or straight, black or white, muslim culture or christian culture, male or female. I did not choose the attributes most significant to an identity politics -- a straight white male within a predominantly christian culture -- yet there you have it. Rationality implies the deliberation of choice, but if being a straight white male is all you need to know of me to vilify me, even worse to vilify me to the point of killing me, something has gone dreadfully wrong. It goes almost without saying, but the most extreme modes of discourse target, both literally and figuratively, those aspects of identity that come before choice and an anger inflamed hatred erase or distort any choices that might come after. On Breitbart, for example, ran an article headlined: "New Black Panthers and BlackLivesMatter activists protesting the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were arrested and weapons were confiscated Saturday evening in Baton Rouge, Louisiana." The article itself is mostly a series of videos supplied through Twitter feeds, but it's the comments that most interest me. One reader, or perhaps watcher, commented:
Its sad that most black Americans are so blinded by the victim narrative, hatred, and ignorance, they don't realize they traded one plantation for another. The democrats simply use them for votes now instead of in the fields. I know that might be a [sic] insensitive thing to say, but i [sic] know if the black population woke up and took a look at their culture, youth, and welfare dependency, then they would be outraged at the farce they've bought into for decades.
There's so much wrong with this comment that one hardly knows where to begin, and perhaps that's the fundamental problem. To point out one's "insensitivity," one's lack of empathy, doesn't excuse it. On the contrary, it exacerbates the problem and simply reveals the "insensitivity" as intentional. It just might be, perhaps, that the "black population" buys into the "victim narrative," because they have been subjected to hatred and ignorance. It just might be, perhaps, that the black population has looked at their "culture, youth, and welfare dependency" and discovered that it's inherent problems can be explained, if not wholly, at least in part, by the sorts of systemic racial injustice that leads to the sorts of shootings we are witnessing throughout the nation. It might just be, perhaps, that movements like the civil rights movements in the 60s and the current Black Lives Matter movements are attempts to rise above the "victim narrative," and assert their basic rights as Americans. It might just be, perhaps, that the more radical New Black Panthers are simply turning the tables, taking up arms to make the victimizers the victims, and capitalizing on their "chance to straighten things out."
I am not qualified to speak for the "black population," or for that matter individual black people. I cannot condone violence, and don't -- period -- and violence doesn't beget empathy, it begets more violence -- period. Had it ended there, given the acknowledgement of insensitivity, one might be able to engage in some discussion, enlarged the realm of his empathy, but of course it didn't end there. If one needed a tutorial in "hatred and ignorance," the continuing discussion provided one. Commenting on his comment, another writer wrote: "They are to much concerned about their next joint and whiskey to care. And it is sad! If their grand mothers of old were around, someone would get a switching to remember." To which another commenter wrote: "WRONG DUMBASS,,, THEIR GRANDMOTHERS TAUGHT THEM TO KILL WHITEY JERK OFF." And it escalates from there. Another commenter wrote: "They are to [sic] fuc*ing dumb and stupid to figure out that they are being used by Obama and Hillary. Obama and Hillary don't give a rat's ass about them. Obama and Hillary are just using them to bring in martial law. Afterwards, the dumb asses will be sent to the DHS camps." To which the previous commenter wrote: "THOSE IGNORANT YARD APES HAVE ZERO SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SKILLS ,, THEY ARE ONLY GOOD FOR ONE THING,,,, FERTILIZER FOR WATERMELONS" and again "THE NAGGERS ARE STUPID IMBECILES THEY WILL NEVER WAKE UP,, IN FACT THE WHITE MAN NEEDS TO PUT THEM ALL TO SLEEP,,, PERMANENTLY ! SMILE WAIT FOR FLASH COCONUT." One really can't engage in discussion or argumentation on the commenters core points because there are no core points. At basis, it's an affirmation of faith in white identity and a call to genocide against the "black population."
If I were persistent enough, I'm sure I would find black nationalist sites, comparable to white nationalist sites, that did issue comparable calls to violence, and it would be equally dispiriting. I did search the more "liberal" web sites (Salon, Huffington Post, et cetera) for a comparable call to violence, but I couldn't find it, at least not as immediately or as easily as I found it on the conservative Breitbart, which tends to indicate that it IS worse than I would want to believe. I am not the first to say this, but there is an asymmetry on the conservative side. Former congressman Joe Walsh, for example, took to twitter and wrote: "3 Dallas Cops killed, 7 wounded. This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out black lives matter punks. Real America is coming after you." Walsh later revealed that Twitter deleted the tweet." While we might be thankful that he is an ex-congressman, it nevertheless points at the degree to which ostensibly mainstream republicans and their leadership are aligned with what can only be called white nationalist thinking. While we might point out that Trump has taken a more "conciliatory tone" after the shootings, that doesn't quite qualify him to be a "racial healer." One doesn't have to dig far to find him "re-tweeting" broadly racist memes from white supremacist sites, which shows at the very least a propensity to believe the worst about the "black population." As reported by PolitiFact, "a day after a black activist was kicked and punched by voters at a Donald Trump rally in Alabama, Trump tweeted an image packed with racially loaded and incorrect murder statistics." I won't repeat the statistics, but again as reported by PolitiFact, the original tweet could be "traced the original image back to a Twitter stream that appears to originate in the United Kingdom and features a modified swatiska with the line 'Should have listened to the Austrian chap with the little mustache.'"
So, what happens if Trump is elected, if the mentality represented above prevails into something resembling power? I really don't know, but I do know that the "problem" and our developing "troubles" will not go away. I doubt that the "black population" of the US will simply bend to his attitudes in quite the same way that a corporate employee bends to the will of the CEO, nor will they be quite as compliant as the jewish population was for the "Austrian chap with the little mustache." The worst hopes of the likes of a Cliven Bundy, or the church shooter, might well be realized, and a form of "civil war" might well erupt. It will not be Obama who declares martial law and calls upon the national guard, and best case scenario, we will revisit the 60s and early 70s. The worst case scenario is something for dystopian, post-apocalyptic fiction, and I will leave it those with darker, more paranoid imaginations than my own.
Friday, July 8, 2016
The Dispossessed Revisited
There are, perhaps, four or five "issues" that SHOULD define the current election -- climate change and energy production, the military and its international role, race and our continuing inability to work toward justice for all, "democracy" and the effects of money along with gerrymandered voter manipulation, and of course, as always, the economy -- but it's ever so rapidly becoming a contest of "benghazi" and the "email scandal" vs what? there is so much to pick from with Trump, and that perhaps is part of the problem, not just one or two things to hammer repeatedly as a "meme."
Although two interminable investigations have produced nothing particularly damning in either the Benghazi affair or Clinton's use of email, the mainstream media continues to hammer away. The NY Times politics page had at least nine stories on the email, many of which point out that the GOP will continue to hammer away at an established meme, and surprise! the republicans continue to hammer away. Breitbart, for example, reports prominently that "Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Wednesday afternoon that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had misled Congress, under oath, when testifying to the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October 2015," and if Politifact and others are to be credited, indeed she did. To put it into perspective, of the 30,000 emails in question, 0.004 percent were found to be "violations" contrary to her public statements. There may be more, but one really wonders if the "smoking gun" will be found among them. While they excoriate her on her email, however, they are supporting a candidate who takes pride in his unpredictability, lies about his charity work, evades taxes, and generally fabricates his own "truth." When challenged, he doubles down on the fabrication. The latest being his praise of Saddam Hussein. He has said, "We shouldn’t have destabilized — Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. Right? He was a bad guy. Really bad guy. But you know what, he did well. He killed terrorists. He did that so good." Of course, how quickly we forget. Indeed, he was a "bad guy." The Washington Post awarded the statement four pinocchios, writing "Hussein was no opponent of terrorists, certainly in the eyes of the West. Perhaps Trump is referring to Hussein’s fight against internal religious extremist movements that he viewed as a threat to his regime — a part of his overall suppression of dissent. But Trump’s description — that Hussein “killed terrorists,” and did it “so well” or was “so good” at it — is just not credible, especially given the overwhelming evidence of Hussein’s long-standing record of supporting (financially and operationally) international terrorist groups." Trump is either ignorant of the man he praises, or he is signaling, along with his praise of Putin and others, that he finds their behavior admirable, particularly their "overall suppression of dissent." Trump has already given sufficient evidence that he is willing to suppress dissent, banning several "dissenting" media outlets from his press events. Clinton may have a scandal with her email, but Trump IS a scandal.
In the meantime, on the front pages of the Times, we have "climate change claims a lake and a way of life" along with a link to a debate on "carbon capture" and its effectiveness in "reducing the emissions that cause global warming" -- a "bombing at Bangladesh’s largest gathering for the Eid al-Fitr holiday killed two police officers and a civilian on Thursday, police officials said, a day after the Islamic State warned that more attacks would follow the militants’ bloody siege in the capital last week" shows that, despite "winning" the ground war in Syria, we are "losing" the war on terror -- moreover, "the Justice Department opened a civil rights investigation on Wednesday into the fatal shooting of a black man by the Baton Rouge, La., police after a searing video of the encounter, aired repeatedly on television and social media, reignited contentious issues surrounding police killings of African-Americans." But hold the presses, a report is about to be issued and after years of investigation and millions of dollars spent we're finally going to learn the truth ... well ... wait ... it's just another of the "unrevealing revelations. After years of work, in one case seven years, the world has been treated to three reports on matters of great import that offer precious little new or useful information." Damn. Surely somewhere in all those emails is the revelation of a Monica/Bill/Hillary threesome captured on grainy video. No? Well keep looking until you find something ...
The real story of this election cycle, and it is getting some press, is the dispossessed and its effect on democracy, not only here, but abroad. I won't disparage social media, but it's reasonably clear that we're engaged in the Twitter election, issues that have been reduced to headlines, and headlines that have been reduced to attitudes without substance. The Twitter election does not lend itself to progress, because progress will require more of us than a "position" or an "opinion." Appropriately, on the wonk blog section of the Washington Post, Ylan Q. Mui published a piece entitled, "Why America’s men aren’t working." First the good news. As she writes, "private employers have added more than 14 million jobs. About 2 million people have been out of a job for six months or longer, far too many but only about a quarter of the number of long-term unemployed people seven years ago. By almost every measure, the labor market has made incredible progress." Now the bad news, "but there’s one statistic that has been vexing economists. The size of the nation’s workforce -- known as the labor force participation rate -- continues to fall." As she goes on to write, "The problem is particularly pronounced among men between the ages of 25 and 54, traditionally considered the prime working years. Their participation rate has been declining for decades, but the drop-off accelerated during the recession. The high mark was 98 percent in 1954, and it now stands at 88 percent." The drop cannot be explained statistically by the entry of women into the workforce or the rise in Social Security Disability payments, or even the rise in the prison populations. The Council of Economic Advisors gives two explanations, "the problem is one of education and the erosion of demand for low-skilled workers. More than 90 percent of college-educated men are in the workforce, compared with 83 percent of those with a high school diploma or less. It’s a theme seen time and again in our increasingly globalized and high-tech economy: Blue-collar jobs that were once the cornerstone of the middle class get outsourced or replaced by automation."
The COE explanation, however, is a reflex action. There is an underlying assumption that education is the answer -- i.e. if college-educated men are productively employed in greater numbers than those without college education, then clearly more men should become college-educated. Problem solved. This may be true, in some limited sense, but it would require a reform of education, top to bottom. Starting at the top and working backwards, the National Assessment of Education Progress, reports that in 2015 only 37% of graduating high students are prepared for college-level math and reading. Many colleges, particularly community colleges, have implemented various forms of "developmental education" to prepare students for college level work, but this can add upward of two years to a college degree, dramatically decreasing their chances of success. Clearly, then, we need better preparation in the elementary and secondary levels to insure that they arrive at college with the necessary math and reading skills, but even that may not be enough. There is the persistent "achievement gap" between racial groups, and according the National Center for Education Statistics, "white students had higher scores than Black students, on average, on all assessments. White students had average scores at least 26 points higher than Black students in each subject." Having said this, however, there are simply too many confounding factors associated with race to make any bell-curve claims about "racial superiority," to include endemic relative poverty, the quality of schools available to students, cultural factors to include racial stereotyping, along with other environmental factors. Even if the shooting turns out to be wholly justified, it would be difficult to estimate the effects on the young girl's school performance on the day after she sat in the back seat of Philadro Castile's car, watching him bleed to death, watching while her mother was cuffed and arrested. We can assume, however, that it won't be negligible. We can also assume, to one degree or another, her experience is not unique.
To have more "college educated" would require a reform of education, top to bottom, but any real reform of education would require a reform of those social factors that mitigate against education, to include issues associated with systemic racism. We are light years away from having real suggestions for "education reform," and galaxies away from having the political will to implement any of those suggestions, in part because the education system is "designed" to reinforce and perpetuate the "savage inequalities" inherent in the existing status quo. Ann Mullen's recent study, "Degrees of Inequality," makes the case reasonably well for higher education, following on studies by Kozol and others who have made the case extensively for elementary and secondary education. Meanwhile, there has been an erosion of the job market, particularly those so-called blue collar jobs that do not require a college education.
It is perhaps not surprising that, as workforce participation declines, as resentments escalate, we too are devolving into "identity politics." If the invidious distinctions between Sunni and Shiite justify internecine war throughout the middle east, if the invidious distinctions between Catholic and Protestant justified decades of internecine war in Ireland, then perhaps it should not be surprising that the strongest marker of identity in the US, race and ethnicity, seem to be a justification of internecine war on our streets. So it is that I awoke this morning to the shootings in Dallas. Breitbart, with their traditional restraint, headlined "12 Police Shot, 5 Murdered at Dallas 'Black Lives Matter' Protest. One Suspect Dead, Three in Custody. Final words: 'I want to kill white people.'" Huffington Post, with their traditional restraint, used Obama's words as the headline, calling it a "despicable, vicious, and calculated attack." The NY Times, for their part, wrote:
It appeared to be the deadliest attack for law enforcement officers in the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The shootings ... transformed an emotional but peaceful rally into a scene of carnage and chaos, and they injected a volatile new dimension into the anguished debate over racial disparities in American criminal justice.
The reference to 9/11, I'm sure, is calculated, but where do we send the troops? Who do we bomb? Perhaps we could follow Saddam Hussein's lead and simply gas some neighborhoods? Bring order to chaos. It worked so well for him.
Although two interminable investigations have produced nothing particularly damning in either the Benghazi affair or Clinton's use of email, the mainstream media continues to hammer away. The NY Times politics page had at least nine stories on the email, many of which point out that the GOP will continue to hammer away at an established meme, and surprise! the republicans continue to hammer away. Breitbart, for example, reports prominently that "Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Wednesday afternoon that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had misled Congress, under oath, when testifying to the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October 2015," and if Politifact and others are to be credited, indeed she did. To put it into perspective, of the 30,000 emails in question, 0.004 percent were found to be "violations" contrary to her public statements. There may be more, but one really wonders if the "smoking gun" will be found among them. While they excoriate her on her email, however, they are supporting a candidate who takes pride in his unpredictability, lies about his charity work, evades taxes, and generally fabricates his own "truth." When challenged, he doubles down on the fabrication. The latest being his praise of Saddam Hussein. He has said, "We shouldn’t have destabilized — Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. Right? He was a bad guy. Really bad guy. But you know what, he did well. He killed terrorists. He did that so good." Of course, how quickly we forget. Indeed, he was a "bad guy." The Washington Post awarded the statement four pinocchios, writing "Hussein was no opponent of terrorists, certainly in the eyes of the West. Perhaps Trump is referring to Hussein’s fight against internal religious extremist movements that he viewed as a threat to his regime — a part of his overall suppression of dissent. But Trump’s description — that Hussein “killed terrorists,” and did it “so well” or was “so good” at it — is just not credible, especially given the overwhelming evidence of Hussein’s long-standing record of supporting (financially and operationally) international terrorist groups." Trump is either ignorant of the man he praises, or he is signaling, along with his praise of Putin and others, that he finds their behavior admirable, particularly their "overall suppression of dissent." Trump has already given sufficient evidence that he is willing to suppress dissent, banning several "dissenting" media outlets from his press events. Clinton may have a scandal with her email, but Trump IS a scandal.
In the meantime, on the front pages of the Times, we have "climate change claims a lake and a way of life" along with a link to a debate on "carbon capture" and its effectiveness in "reducing the emissions that cause global warming" -- a "bombing at Bangladesh’s largest gathering for the Eid al-Fitr holiday killed two police officers and a civilian on Thursday, police officials said, a day after the Islamic State warned that more attacks would follow the militants’ bloody siege in the capital last week" shows that, despite "winning" the ground war in Syria, we are "losing" the war on terror -- moreover, "the Justice Department opened a civil rights investigation on Wednesday into the fatal shooting of a black man by the Baton Rouge, La., police after a searing video of the encounter, aired repeatedly on television and social media, reignited contentious issues surrounding police killings of African-Americans." But hold the presses, a report is about to be issued and after years of investigation and millions of dollars spent we're finally going to learn the truth ... well ... wait ... it's just another of the "unrevealing revelations. After years of work, in one case seven years, the world has been treated to three reports on matters of great import that offer precious little new or useful information." Damn. Surely somewhere in all those emails is the revelation of a Monica/Bill/Hillary threesome captured on grainy video. No? Well keep looking until you find something ...
The real story of this election cycle, and it is getting some press, is the dispossessed and its effect on democracy, not only here, but abroad. I won't disparage social media, but it's reasonably clear that we're engaged in the Twitter election, issues that have been reduced to headlines, and headlines that have been reduced to attitudes without substance. The Twitter election does not lend itself to progress, because progress will require more of us than a "position" or an "opinion." Appropriately, on the wonk blog section of the Washington Post, Ylan Q. Mui published a piece entitled, "Why America’s men aren’t working." First the good news. As she writes, "private employers have added more than 14 million jobs. About 2 million people have been out of a job for six months or longer, far too many but only about a quarter of the number of long-term unemployed people seven years ago. By almost every measure, the labor market has made incredible progress." Now the bad news, "but there’s one statistic that has been vexing economists. The size of the nation’s workforce -- known as the labor force participation rate -- continues to fall." As she goes on to write, "The problem is particularly pronounced among men between the ages of 25 and 54, traditionally considered the prime working years. Their participation rate has been declining for decades, but the drop-off accelerated during the recession. The high mark was 98 percent in 1954, and it now stands at 88 percent." The drop cannot be explained statistically by the entry of women into the workforce or the rise in Social Security Disability payments, or even the rise in the prison populations. The Council of Economic Advisors gives two explanations, "the problem is one of education and the erosion of demand for low-skilled workers. More than 90 percent of college-educated men are in the workforce, compared with 83 percent of those with a high school diploma or less. It’s a theme seen time and again in our increasingly globalized and high-tech economy: Blue-collar jobs that were once the cornerstone of the middle class get outsourced or replaced by automation."
The COE explanation, however, is a reflex action. There is an underlying assumption that education is the answer -- i.e. if college-educated men are productively employed in greater numbers than those without college education, then clearly more men should become college-educated. Problem solved. This may be true, in some limited sense, but it would require a reform of education, top to bottom. Starting at the top and working backwards, the National Assessment of Education Progress, reports that in 2015 only 37% of graduating high students are prepared for college-level math and reading. Many colleges, particularly community colleges, have implemented various forms of "developmental education" to prepare students for college level work, but this can add upward of two years to a college degree, dramatically decreasing their chances of success. Clearly, then, we need better preparation in the elementary and secondary levels to insure that they arrive at college with the necessary math and reading skills, but even that may not be enough. There is the persistent "achievement gap" between racial groups, and according the National Center for Education Statistics, "white students had higher scores than Black students, on average, on all assessments. White students had average scores at least 26 points higher than Black students in each subject." Having said this, however, there are simply too many confounding factors associated with race to make any bell-curve claims about "racial superiority," to include endemic relative poverty, the quality of schools available to students, cultural factors to include racial stereotyping, along with other environmental factors. Even if the shooting turns out to be wholly justified, it would be difficult to estimate the effects on the young girl's school performance on the day after she sat in the back seat of Philadro Castile's car, watching him bleed to death, watching while her mother was cuffed and arrested. We can assume, however, that it won't be negligible. We can also assume, to one degree or another, her experience is not unique.
To have more "college educated" would require a reform of education, top to bottom, but any real reform of education would require a reform of those social factors that mitigate against education, to include issues associated with systemic racism. We are light years away from having real suggestions for "education reform," and galaxies away from having the political will to implement any of those suggestions, in part because the education system is "designed" to reinforce and perpetuate the "savage inequalities" inherent in the existing status quo. Ann Mullen's recent study, "Degrees of Inequality," makes the case reasonably well for higher education, following on studies by Kozol and others who have made the case extensively for elementary and secondary education. Meanwhile, there has been an erosion of the job market, particularly those so-called blue collar jobs that do not require a college education.
It is perhaps not surprising that, as workforce participation declines, as resentments escalate, we too are devolving into "identity politics." If the invidious distinctions between Sunni and Shiite justify internecine war throughout the middle east, if the invidious distinctions between Catholic and Protestant justified decades of internecine war in Ireland, then perhaps it should not be surprising that the strongest marker of identity in the US, race and ethnicity, seem to be a justification of internecine war on our streets. So it is that I awoke this morning to the shootings in Dallas. Breitbart, with their traditional restraint, headlined "12 Police Shot, 5 Murdered at Dallas 'Black Lives Matter' Protest. One Suspect Dead, Three in Custody. Final words: 'I want to kill white people.'" Huffington Post, with their traditional restraint, used Obama's words as the headline, calling it a "despicable, vicious, and calculated attack." The NY Times, for their part, wrote:
It appeared to be the deadliest attack for law enforcement officers in the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The shootings ... transformed an emotional but peaceful rally into a scene of carnage and chaos, and they injected a volatile new dimension into the anguished debate over racial disparities in American criminal justice.
The reference to 9/11, I'm sure, is calculated, but where do we send the troops? Who do we bomb? Perhaps we could follow Saddam Hussein's lead and simply gas some neighborhoods? Bring order to chaos. It worked so well for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)