R: Race and the Tea Party
Whenever I bring up race and the Tea Party, or race and President Obama, or race and the angry opposition to the president, I’m often told, “Why bring race into this?”
I want to get into a long, rational discussion about race and how it has been the main antagonist (protagonist) in American politics basically since the country’s inception.
I want to discuss the murder–genocide, really–of the tribes of the Americas.
I want to discuss slavery.
I want to discuss the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation and Reconstruction.
I want to discuss the rise of prisons and how blacks were incarcerated to continue picking cotton and harvesting crops.
I want to discuss the use of blacks as strikebreakers, which angered white workers and helped empower groups like the KKK to terrorize black communities.
I want to discuss laws in California that prohibited the Chinese from owning property in the early 20th Century.
I want to discuss the imprisonment of Japanese citizens during World War II, while German and Italian citizens roamed free and fought for the United States.
I want to discuss the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.
I want to discuss the anti-Semitism that was a major reason the U.S. did not get involved in World War II until it did–reports about the atrocities dealing with Jews were out there, just on Page 33 of The New York Times.
I want to discuss the split of the United States into North and South–AGAIN–in the late 1940s and early 1950s when President Truman made Civil Rights part of the Democratic agenda.
I want to discuss South Carolina’s Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond’s attempt to run as a Dixiecrat with a strong, anti-Civil Rights agenda.
Then I want to tell these people that in 1964, Thrumond switched parties. The lifelong Democrat became a Republican. A switch that helped create our current political structure.
A structure that can now be explained as follows:
Democrats: The Party of change and progress.
Republicans: The Party of the good ol’ days.
Democrats: The Party of the minority.
Republicans: The Party of the old guard.
Democrats: The Party of “this is our country.”
Republicans: The Party of “this is my country.”
Thurmond wasn’t alone, but he became the face of the anti-equality movement.
Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts, there have been several battles over race. They just take different names: busing, immigration, welfare, prison.
Since Obama’s been inaugurated, hell, since he’s been elected, the battle over race has taken on a different mantra:
“Let’s take back our country.”
We hear it over and over. Tea Party members say it. Republican candidates say it. Republican talking heads say it. Republican morons say it (couldn’t help it, sorry).
But what does it mean? Has Obama created a radical takeover of people’s lives? No way. Have taxes risen dramatically for all Americans? No.
But the opposition has made it clear: they don’t like government messing with their Medicare.
There are subtle messages that race continues to drive the politics: blame the immigrant as is happening in Arizona.
Vivid messages are shouted at protests.
And double-dipping, covering-all-bases messages are given by candidates like Rand Paul who was asked by Rachel Maddow whether he would have supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
“What I think would happen – what I’m saying is, is that I don’t believe in any discrimination. I don’t believe in any private property should discriminate, either. And I wouldn’t attend, wouldn’t support, wouldn’t go to. But what you have to answer when you answer this point of view, which is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to bring up. But if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants and then you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants.”
Huh?
Oh he explains more today saying that he doesn’t favor a repeal of the Act, but:
“This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.”
Wait, what?
“Government bad.”
“Government overreaches.”
“Civil Rights Act good. Sort of. No. Good. Really.”
Civil Rights Act of 1964 forcing businesses to desegregate?
“Government– hey, look, fire, over there!”
Now, the entire Tea Party movement isn’t built on racism. I don’t want people to believe that I think that. But, where the movement is taking place, racism is still prevalent.
That said, the Tea Party movement IS built on race. Like I said before, our entire political system is. The fact that there is a black president angers and SCARES many Tea Party members, especially those from the Midwest and the South.
It’s important to acknowledge this fact. If not, the entire dialogue, the entire tone of politics in this country doesn’t make sense.
It’s like reading The Great Gatsby without knowing the difference between old money and new money.
I’m going to say it one more time: politics in the United States is built on race.
Now let’s deal with it.
Filed under: General | Leave a Comment
Tags: racism, Tea Party
At one point in my life, the Los Angeles Times was the “It” paper. While The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal (the journalism section, not its editorial pages) set the standard for American journalism, I convinced myself that the LA Times wasn’t too far behind.
I am convinced now.
The three major newspapers have learned how to use Web 2.0 — blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr — to push journalism to another level.
Even Reuters, the venerable wire service, has set standards on how to use Web 2.0. That company’s rule regarding instantaneous news? Journalism is still journalism. There is no room for opinion, misinformation, or poor reporting.
The uptake? These publications treat blogs like they treat articles published in newspapers.
Which brings me to the Los Angeles Times, especially its Top of the Ticket blog penned primarily by Andrew Malcolm (although the Times lists Johanna Neuman as a contributor).
If you don’t know Malcolm, he’s the former press secretary for First Lady Laura Bush. He’s also a long-time reporter (hell, could be a very good reporter) and served on the Times’ editorial board. My guess is he started writing the Ticket blog sometime early in 2008 (his bio is dated November 1, 2008).
But since the campaign season that year, Malcolm has proved himself to be nothing short of a partisan hack on the levels of a Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. He often resorts to nicknames for President Obama, his latest being “The Smoker.” Which would be fine, I guess, if the blog was labeled clearly as “Opinion” as The New York Times and The Washington Post do.
Instead “Top of the Ticket” is labeled “Politics, coast to coast, with the L.A. Times” and is listed clearly under the “Politics” section, not the “Opinion” section.
To make things even worse for the Times, the newspaper often reposts Malcolm’s blogs as actual stories. For example, “A little secret about Obama’s transparency” posted yesterday looks exactly like an article penned by a real reporter.
In this news article, which is what the URL suggests (even if “Top of the Ticket” is written at the top), includes zero original sources — a big no-no in journalism. Yes, it’s from a blog post, but if it’s reprinted as an actual article, it should contain sources. Heck, most columns contain at least one original source.
But my real problems with Malcolm hit a tipping point Saturday night, a day before the historic vote on healthcare reform, in a blog post titled, “Cast your own vote on Obama’s healthcare plan.” The primary problem comes from the poll questions posted below the blog, especially Nos. 2 and 4:
- Obama’s healthcare plan is so good it should also apply to Obama, his family, all members of Congress and their families. (It does)
- I wish those folks had spent all these months focusing on jobs and the economy instead. (They did)
The wording and loaded questions upset me so much, I wrote a long response and posted it. I kept waiting for it to appear after being moderated, but it didn’t. So I reposted it thinking I had made a mistake. Again, nothing.
I wondered what I had written that kept them from publishing my comment.
Here’s the full text of what I wrote (much of which is repeated above):
Recently, Reuters released standard practices for journalists using social media, which is what blogs are. The standards break down into one simple rule:“Accuracy, freedom from bias and integrity are fundamental to the reputation of Reuters and your ability to do your job effectively. The advent of social media changes none of this and you should do nothing that would damage our reputation for impartiality and independence.”If Andrew Malcolm worked for Reuters, he’d be fired for this piece of misinformation and obvious bias.Malcolm is an embarrassment to the Los Angeles Times. His reporting is full of vindictiveness, poor reporting, and straight-out falsehoods.Take for example poll questions 2 and 4:“2) Obama’s healthcare plan is so good it should also apply to Obama, his family, all members of Congress and their families.”- Unfortunately, it’s not a “healthcare plan.” It’s a reform of the current system. The only “plan” being created is the ability to buy into a pool of other independent people. “Reform” does not equal “plan.” Malcolm knows this is true, but he perpetuates the falsehood because it probably boosts his ego when he receives responses like this. No one’s insurance will change if they don’t want it to.“4) I wish those folks had spent all these months focusing on jobs and the economy instead.”- Was it my imagination or did President Obama just sign an $18 billion jobs bill? In addition, aren’t there physical signs throughout Los Angeles that say “This project is paid for by the Reinvestment Act of 2009″? Nevermind that unemployment has slowed, and it appears job growth should begin by the end of this year. Again, Malcolm knows this, but he perpetuates the lie that Obama hasn’t done anything about jobs because, hey, let me be funny.The Los Angeles Times used to try to compete with the big newspapers — The New York Times and The Washington Post. But with one of the paper’s top political reporters, which is what a blogger is, demonstrating such terribly poor professionalism, it’s no wonder why no one mentions this newspaper when it talks about the best in the nation.Shame on you, LA Times. And Andrew Malcolm, get over yourself.
I had a serious point, so I made it, albeit in an angry way. In fact, my post was tame compared to some of the others that were published.
Here are some of the comments from those who opposed the bill:
Guy Arnold wrote:
“Obama is a devout Muslim and with no doubt he is screwing up our country to it’s worst condition.”
Peggy wrote:
“Obama, progressives and looney tunes dems are done. AS IS THE LAME STREAM MEDIA. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for helping to elect a Muslim Socialist radical like Obama. How can you look at yourselves in the mirror every day to shave, or what ever?”
Yolanda wrote:
“If the President thinks his healthcare if so good, He should ask millions of unborn children what they think of federally funded abortions”
And about 70 others like these (including one guy who wrote, “Is Obama a foreign agent? I don’t know.”)
But he also posted the comments of those who supported the bill (responding to many):
Filed under: media | Leave a Comment
Tags: Andrew Malcolm, blogs, journalism, Los Angeles Times, media, misinformation
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today said that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were a “big lie” that served as a pretext for going to war in Afghanistan.
“September 11 was a big lie and a pretext for the war on terror and a prelude to invading Afghanistan”
- AP
Don’t get me wrong. The Bush-Cheney administration used 9/11 as a pretext for many things, including an illegal war in Iraq, a way to increase domestic surveillance of Americans, and as an opportunity to test the limits of the Geneva Convention. They also failed by taking their eyes off of Bin Laden and al Qaeda and instead focusing them on Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
But was it a big conspiracy to get the United States into war in Afghanistan?
Filed under: General | Leave a Comment
Tags: 9/11, Ahmadinejad, Iran
Thank You, Howard Zinn
When I was a 20-year-old college student floating through junior college with no sense of purpose, or no sense of feeling the need to accomplish anything, I ran across Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.
Like a lot of people my age, I first heard of the book in Good Will Hunting, the 1997 film starring Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.
I wanted to read this history book that would supposedly “blow my f***ing mind.”
I read chapter one, which told the story of Christopher Columbus arriving in Hispaniola (modern day Haiti and the Dominican Republic) and how easy he said it would be to enslave the natives because they were so nice and giving.
That wasn’t the history I knew, but it definitely seemed more accurate than the story I was told as a youth of how Columbus discovering America was a good thing for everyone, including the newly enslaved indigenous population.
This initial story did blow my mind, but no more so than the rest of the book.
Professor Zinn’s thesis in the book that the battles going on in the United States are always the repetition of the constant struggle between the haves and have nots makes a lot more sense than the mythology of the American melting pot.
Its stories about poor blacks being pitted against poor striking white workers, which led to the racist acts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries made much more sense than the idea that racism sprung out of nowhere.
The fact that slaves did rebel and rebelled often completely contradicts the idea of the docile cotton picker on Southern plantations that we learned in grade school.
After reading A People’s History, it became obvious that there was never a Golden Age in America. In parts of the country? Yes. For a few? Yes. But not for all.
Not for most, actually. But we never learned this in our history.
The stories about those suffering from the oppression of the wealthy are never told. This is what made A People’s History such a treasure. Professor Zinn told these stories of oppression and then of protest. He told the stories of the people, not of the victors.
Mainstream historians and conservative commentators have criticized him as a “polemist,” or a controversialist.
Professor Zinn did speak against the mainstream, and he did often argue against the oppression of others. He advised students who participated in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, which attempted to desegregate the South by participating in sit-ins and marches.
He was also a powerful voice in the anti-war movements of the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s and 2000s.
Professor Zinn always said that during times of war, those who suffer the most weren’t the instigators, rather they are the poor soldiers fighting and the people of the countries in which the fighting is taking place.
That fact is evident today as those who suffer the most in Afghanistan and Iraq are the hundreds of people at a time who get blown up and killed or maimed up by car bombs in marketplaces and mosques. And the wealthy Osama Bin Laden isn’t fighting. The poor, uneducated, disaffected Muslim youth is the one blowing himself up.
But Professor Zinn is more than a “polemist.” He taught that history is a subjective subject. He taught that writers left out parts they deemed unimportant to the story. The “unimportant parts of the story” usually happened to include those on the losing sides of these battles: the indigenous, the blacks, and the poor.
And when history is seen through this point of view, it makes much more sense.
If it wasn’t for my chance encounter with A People’s History of the United States, I never would have studied journalism and political science once I got my act together in junior college.
I became a reporter to tell the story of the have nots, but there just didn’t seem to be enough time or space in the newspaper for these.
And that’s why now, as a teacher, I always try to be completely honest with my students by painting as complete a picture of something as I possibly can.
It’s this point of view of a constant struggle that continues to shape the world around me. From the healthcare debates in Congress to the banking industry’s games to the unfairness of American education, these are all still battles between the powerful and the poor.
It’s also through this point of view that I learned to fully love my country. It is full of faults, but the people who live here will always fight for their rights despite the consequences.
A woman from Michigan called in to NPR today and said that Howard Zinn was “a warrior” and that we must all pick up the slack now that he’s gone.
Thanks to Professor Zinn, I think I’m as ready as possible.
Filed under: General | 1 Comment
Tags: hero, Howard Zinn
It’s hard to take a 70-minute speech and break down every claim. In fact, Republicans didn’t even worry about refuting any claim in President Barack Obama’s first State of the Union speech tonight, instead they just repeated talking points in their rebuttal. But whether or not you like what President Obama had to say, one thing can’t be debated: he knows how to deliver a speech and he did great tonight.
Likes
- Finally, blame is placed on the previous administration. Earlier this week, James Carville wrote that the Democrats don’t know how to play the “blame game.” But tonight, in almost unarguable fashion, the president pointed out that the economic crisis, especially the budget deficit, falls almost entirely on the Bush Administration:
So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.
Finally. Finally. FINALLY! The leader of the party placed blame where it belongs. Just like the Great Depression wasn’t FDR’s fault, this current crisis isn’t Obama’s fault. It’s time for this to be the Democrats mantra: “We need to cut spending and raise taxes on the wealthy because the previous president wasted the country’s money on two wars (one unjustified war) and two tax cuts primarily for the wealthy.”
And later, he was able to place the blame of the banking collapse, which happened months before the November election, on the deregulatory drug that the Bush Administration and even Clinton Administration 10 years earlier were smoking:
From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument — that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again. Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time to try something new.
- Republicans are finally called out on their obstructionist agenda: “And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together.”
- He told Democrats to grow a pair: “To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills.”
One of the biggest problems in Obama’s first term has been the need to please Republicans. Democrats have not been able to push through a single major reform of Obama’s agenda because they lacked the political willpower to do so. Let the Republicans filibuster. Let them keep voting “no.” But don’t hide. The Democrats have one of the largest majorities in both houses, but don’t know how to lead. They are like an offensive lineman that caught a tipped pass and doesn’t know what to do with it, so they just fall down, or run the wrong way on the field. 59-41 is still an commanding lead in the Senate, so damn Scott Brown’s election. It is just one vote and this country has been able to function and major legislation has been able to pass without one party having a supermajority.
- Accepting fault for his failures. One of the biggest frustrations I had with the Bush Administration was its inability to admit to mistakes. It screwed up over and over again, whether it was it lying about Iraq, or it’s decision to send too few troops into Afghanistan, or it’s decision not to repeal tax cuts that were making this country broke. At least twice tonight, Obama admitted that he had screwed up:
On health care:
Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, “What’s in it for me?”
And during his grand finale:
Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved.
I’d like someone find Bush admit fault. Admitting failure is not a sign of weakness. It’s a sign of strength.
Sort-of Likes
- On energy. One of the most surprising facts about the Republican Party is its love for nuclear energy. The party that claims to be against big government and welfare supports the energy source that needs the most government backing. And Obama through them a bone on this issue. He said let’s build nuclear power plants and clean-coal plants and drill for natural gas off of our coasts because, well, he has to say that. And the energy issue is one that crosses party lines. What will Democrats in Pennsylvania say when Obama says, “Sorry, guys, were not supporting coal anymore.” That is political suicide. Hopefully a comprehensive energy bill, something that needs to be passed by Congress, can make it through. But the real goal, as was obvious in the scattered, half-hearted applause from the Republican side, is to “invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.” It’s important to remember that not ONE source of energy development in this country’s history hasn’t been subsidized in one way or another.
- The president will NOT give up on healthcare reform. With 59 votes, the Democrats are running away from any chance at enacting real healthcare reform. Why? The overwhelming content of the two bills supports the following: 1. the ending of preexisting-condition discrimination, and 2. the creation of an exchange that allows non-insured citizens to buy into a group plan. Those two reforms alone are enough to make this healthcare reform act effective. This is what he said: “I didn’t choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn’t take on health care because it was good politics.”
- Asking for the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is great, but he should have spent more time on the issue. The military has ALWAYS been the great melting pot of American society. It was the first place where blacks were equal to white, where Indians became Americans, and where the bravest soldiers, or those awarded the highest percentage of medals, has been Hispanics and Latinos. Homosexuality is a similar issue. But he should have spent more than just a passing phrase on this issue.
Dislikes
- A spending freeze is too much to give to Republicans. If he wanted to really meet them in the middle without giving up too much, he should have asked for the line-item veto and then pledged to cut all pork-barrel spending and then create a bipartisan commission on deficit reduction. I think that would have been enough.
- This is to Samuel Alito: You are a Supreme Court justice, one of the nine most respected people in this country, show some non-partisan backbone. Moron. So he criticized your decision. Who f’n cares? It won’t be the last one either.
- The post-SOTU “analysis” by the major networks is a joke. Again, to the media: the former Bush appointee will say Obama’s plans won’t work. The former Clinton appointee will say Obama’s plans are great. Duh. What about analysis? ABC News actually had an economist on the air to discuss the small business plan. That segment was great. He was honest about what he liked about the plan, and how it would help businesses. I expected him to say $30 billion was too little. But he just analyzed what the president said. Then I turned it to CNN and the “analysts” were arguing whether it was OK to criticize a Supreme Court decision. Silly stuff, really.
My overall take
Obama is such a great speaker and he delivered. His speech reached across party lines and he really made multiple efforts to hook Republicans into participating (nuclear energy, spending freeze, tax cuts). But he energized Democrats. I’m energized and I know other Democrats will be too. He gave the party some backbone and that’s what was really needed. He reminded the party that they are the ones with major majorities in both houses of Congress. Act like it.
Filed under: General, Spin Control, Why Obama? | Leave a Comment
Tags: Obama, reaction, SOTU, speech
Search
Recent Entries
- R: Race and the Tea Party
- Why Did the LA Times Censor My Blog Comment – Twice?
- Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud – This Dude Needs to Shut Up
- Thank You, Howard Zinn
- SOTU: Likes, Sort-of Likes, Dislikes
- Spin Control: Democrats Jumping Ship?
- RepublicLiar of the Day: Newt Gingrich
- Why Obama’s First Year and Star Wars: The Phantom Menace are Alike
- Health Care Part 2: It’s Responsible Citizenship, Not Socialism
- Health Care Reform: Relax, Your Grandmother and Unborn Child Will Be Fine
- Obama needs to be more like Bush
Categories
- Campaign Finances (2)
- Campaign Tactics (12)
- Energy Policy (9)
- Environmental Policy (5)
- Flip-Flop (3)
- General (28)
- Health Care (3)
- Immigration (2)
- media (1)
- Random (2)
- RepublicLies (13)
- Security (2)
- Spin Control (2)
- Why Obama? (14)
JWinters:
Rusty (a Republican, actually makes some of the same points as me):
There are a few dozen of other posts by supporters of healthcare, many criticizing the poll, which is what the questions are despite what Malcolm may believe (unscientific, yes, but still a poll), and I didn’t see where my post crossed the line. Maybe it was quoting Reuters, or perhaps it was the “shame on you” line, which I admit now is a bit pompous. Hell, maybe it was too long (even though there were posts longer than mine).
Or maybe Malcolm couldn’t think of a snarky response to my post.
With comments like “This is a political blog. It is not a newspaper, hence to paper” it”s clear that Malcolm has little respect for new journalism and the power blogs and Web 2.0 has on current events.
And it’s also why he fails as a blogger and as a reporter. And this is also why the LA Times fails as a newspaper.