Powered By Blogger

Publius Speaks

Publius Speaks
Become A Follower

6/22/2015

Not in the Stars But In Ourselves

Nine persons shot to death in the historic African Methodist Episcopal “Mother Emanuel” church of Charleston, South Carolina in the midst of a Bible study. That news reverberated with devastating force throughout that historic city, through the state and quickly as part of our national news scene in this past week. Many of us felt the tragedy personally and with evident grief. 

With a heavy heart, President Obama reminded us that this was the 14th time he has addressed us about senseless mass killings.  He refused to accept this kind of event as a new norm. That burden which the President has carried on our behalf has certainly served to awaken many of us to the reality of domestic terrorism that we are experiencing. And it recalled in me as well, the unrelenting suffering of the families of the victims of this shooting and of all those that preceded this incident. Along with many others, I mourn the loss of these unique and special people who were on a journey of commitment to a God they revered, whose Love they attempted in their own way to emulate and to imitate through their thank-full lives.

I think it must also be said that the victims’ families have given us all a unique experience of what it means to “live the Gospel.” With this tragedy just a very few days old, many of them appeared in court to speak to the killer about their loss and the sorrow inflicted upon them by his actions. But then, out of the depth of their faith, several declared their forgiveness and wished for him a godly mercy that in most cases would be the last thing many under similar circumstances would want or would ever express.

We have been historic witnesses to something beyond our normal comprehension: the killing of nine innocent people out of racial hate, and the unfettered forgiveness offered to that same killer by family members of the victims. Both are extraordinary actions, but wholly contradictory in their nature. The actions of the family members symbolize and epitomize what Christianity was meant to be: a reversal of chaos; a new creation; a realm of redeeming actions, not the burdening of people with restrictions and limits and doctrinal manipulations, and certainly not the repository of enmity toward others.

It is all too human to want to know what motivates others; or what hidden meaning lies beneath our human tragedies. That quest has energized theologians, playwrights, songwriters, novelists, filmmakers, musicians, and plain everyday folk throughout our existence. We cannot seem to advance to another level of understanding of ourselves and others without this question being answered whenever our normality or our comfort zone, our beliefs or our institutions take a direct hit by an incomprehensible event, and we ask: WHY?

Speculation then abounds: Was it a mental illness that motivated this man? Was it the devil? Did he experience something bad in childhood that has damaged him? Does he have a genetic disposition toward violence? Did his parents have anything to do with his behavior? We often say or read that had someone acted sooner, it might have been prevented, meaning that the shooter most often has a record of disturbance, or aberrant behavior, or anti-social acts that should have been a clue to the need for earlier intervention. But somehow, the clues are missed, the early intervention never happened, and the shooter is often dismissed as mentally deranged.

It seems that the opportunity for politicians to pontificate is never missed.
Even politicians who have no intention of ever voting to curb gun violence get in on the act, expressing condolences to the victims’ families and loved ones, or perhaps expressing their concerns about mental health, expansion of law enforcement or the devastation to community, or the heart-brokenness they perceive in their constituency. They promise that their city, region or state will come back from this particular tragedy with renewed vigor and awareness, or whatever they may need to impress upon the voters at the moment. Community unity and resolve seem to be most favored.

But, there are other thoughts and theories that have begun to emerge as media and pundits and pinheads take side-roads on their flight to ignore the very real reason for this shooting, preferring to call it an “accident” as has former Texas Governor Rick Perry; or an attack upon “Christianity” as did Senator Lindsay Graham. They deserve nothing but short shrift in their lack of plausibility and reality.

Just when was it that S.C. Governor Nikki Haley or Senator Lindsey Graham ever proposed a plan to prevent such tragedies? Has either of them supported legislation to expand background checks for gun purchasers? Has either of them expanded the scope of mental health programs or personnel to specifically address early intervention when signs and symptoms of mental disturbances appear in children and teenagers? Has either of them even suggested that the concealed carry laws of their state could result in tragedies like this? Or that gun ownership laws outlawing the giving or loaning of a gun to a child or teenager would be helpful in preventing some of these tragic shootings? Not on your life (nor anyone else’s for that matter).

These South Carolina Republicans (see more on their records at www.ontheissues.org), and others like them, have too often supported legislation that demeans the status of certain people in their state. In doing so, they give credence to the concepts and prejudices of people like Dylann Roof and add to a societal climate in which domestic terrorism is accepted as the new norm, and racial hatred as an acceptable standard that they prefer to leave unaddressed and unspoken.

Notwithstanding, let us now focus our attention on the one overriding factor and defining answer to WHY this person named Dylann Roof did what he did. If early reports are creditable, he may have had second thoughts about carrying through because of the kind treatment and welcome he received from those present in the study group, but after about an hour, he made his move and began shooting. There have been some reports that he mentioned that he was carrying out a “mission,” (to start a “race war”) which to some has indicated the possibility of following orders or a directive. It has a lot to do with our political climate and with what politicians at all levels say and do in their deliberations.

However, the fault lies ensconced in more than politics and its environment. A phrase keeps running through my head: Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: Act 1, Scene 2, Page 6:
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars. But in ourselves…”

A writer for the Daily Kos may have had similar thoughts as he de-cried attempts to back away from the primary motive behind these killings.

Say something, anything, against the white supremacist beliefs that motivated this sad young man to go into a house of prayer and kill innocent people because of the color of their skin, and because of hate he learned from people who proudly worship the Confederate flag.
Nikki Haley and her ilk need to own up to what they have done and are doing to feed and strengthen and encourage stomach-turning nostalgia for the days when black folks were bought and sold, tortured at will, raped and forced to bear their rapists' children, and generally treated as unworthy of human dignity.
Nikki Haley and her ilk need to own up to what they have done and are doing to continue the Jim Crow traditions of preventing black folks from having fair access to education and jobs and health care and housing and voting.
I am bone weary of doubletalk by R(epublican) cons and their mouthpieces using carefully chosen words today to try to condemn the shooter and the killings while ignoring the racist culture that inspired him.” (NYT)

As very difficult as it may be, we cannot avoid the white supremacy that motivated the shooter to overcome his second thoughts and to proceed with his “plan.” The force of racial hatred overwhelmed all other possible contributing factors. This young man was a white supremacist who intentionally killed African-Americans, pure and simple. He had a mission and a plan, and he carried them through to the bitter end. He may well be a “domestic terrorist” as is any group or organization that puts hate forward as its mission and killing innocent human beings as its purpose. We don’t know whether he belonged to an organized white supremacist organization, but the very society in which he lives trains us all in hate and prejudice and bigotry, and we not only ignore it, we deny it as well. In fact the “boo-birds” have probably already emerged to deny and emasculate that last statement. But now that it is out in the open, let us explore an article which puts it in terms all should be able to understand and even appreciate.

A reporter/writer named Joan Olsson, who holds three doctorates and has been studying and working on antiracism for over 20 years, has written a piece called “Detour Spotting” that spells out for us how societal education takes place and how it keeps white people in charge and in power. Let her speak to you about the most ignored and most volatile issue in American politics and American society today (as it was in yesteryear). [All emphases are mine].

For white people living in North America learning to be antiracist is a reeducation process. We must unlearn our thorough racist conditioning to reeducate and recondition ourselves as antiracists. There is scant social or political encouragement for this journey of reeducation. We are constantly tempted to detour off course by the racist propaganda of society and our own guilt and denial… to continue this journey takes bold and stubborn effort.

No white person has ever lived in a non-racist North America. We were never taught the skills of antiracist living. Indeed, we were carefully taught the opposite: how to maintain our white privilege. Racism, the system of oppression (of people of color) and advantage (for white people) depends on the collusion and cooperation of white people for its perpetuation.
“Most of us first became aware of racial prejudice and injustice as children. As white infants we were fed a pabulum of racist propaganda. That early "training" was comprehensive and left little room for question, challenge or doubt. Our childhood games, rhymes and media conspired: "Eenie, meenie, minie, mo; Catch a n...r by his toe..." We played cowboys and Indians. All of us knew the Indians were bad and had to die. “Black” was equated with dirt, bad moods and attitudes, a family miscreant, denigration and rejection (as in being black-balled); with evil and with death.

“As Lillian Smith acknowledged: ‘These ceremonials in honor of white supremacy, performed from babyhood, slip from the conscious mind down deep into muscles and glands and become difficult to tear out.’ Our generous child wisdom told us racism was wrong, but there was no escaping the daily racist catechism. We internalized our beliefs about people of color…and about being white. Those internalized attitudes became actualized into racist behavior.

As I continue my journey toward becoming a reconditioned and effective antiracist, I have become aware of ‘habits,’ attitudes and their attached behaviors, which divert me from my intended goal.

“To change the detouring behavior, I must first be fully conscious of what I'm doing, the behavior and its consequences. Next, I need to reflect on the behavior's attitudinal roots. Finally, I determine the prescribed, desired change I want to make and the best strategy for achieving it. Sometimes I need to remove the behavior from my personal repertoire. More often though, retooling is necessary, replacing the discarded pattern with new behaviors. It will likely take repeated attempts before I have fully internalized and externalized the desired change.

“Most of the obstacles and detours encountered on our journey of reeducation are those same habitual behaviors birthed in our internalized beliefs. The behaviors will vary with each white person because no two white people share exactly the same experiences and societal moldings. We learned racism in our unique and personal ways from different teachers and at different times. But, we all learned the lessons well. I have observed in myself and other white people some common patterns of guilt, denial and defensiveness which appear regularly in our interactions with people of color and other white people.”[Although Olsson identifies eighteen common detours from her antiracist journey, I have narrowed the field somewhat]

1) I’m Colorblind.
“People are just people; I don’t see color.” Statements like this assume that people of color, in order to be validated, must be seen as just like us: white, with the same dreams, standards, problems, peeves that we have.

But “Colorblindness” negates the cultural values, norms, expectations and life experiences of people of color. It also ignores their experience of racism and our experience of privilege. “I’m colorblind” can also be an excuse for being afraid or reluctant to discuss racism. Color consciousness does not equal racism.

2) The Rugged Individual and the Bootstrap Theory
“America is the land of opportunity, built by rugged individuals, where anyone with grit and determination can succeed if they pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.”

These are two of the crown jewels of U.S. social propaganda. The actual reality, of course, is that few really ever make it into the less than 1% of very successful and very rich elite. But the two nuggets persist and enable each generation to say: “If you succeed, YOU did that, but if you fail, or if you’re poor, that’s your fault.”

“Belief in this propaganda is founded in a total denial of the impact of either oppression or privilege on any person’s chance for success.”

3) Reverse Racism
“Affirmative Action” (or the Civil Rights Movement) had a role years ago, but today it’s just reverse racism; now it’s discriminating against white men (and the civil rights movement is likewise no longer working for equality but for revenge or reparation).

The author takes time at this point to define racial prejudice as something both races possess, after all a person of color or a white person can act on their social conditioning to insult or hurt one another. People of color can act out of a personal prejudice against white people.

But, she maintains, personal prejudice and racism are two different concepts and social constructs.
In order to be racist, one race must have the ability as part of a social group to control or oppress the other race or group. “People of color do not have the societal, institutional power to oppress white people as a group. Therefore, to say people of color can be racist denies the power imbalance inherent in systemic, institutional and organized racism.

White people have the political, systemic and institutional power and they are therefore the guardians and the purveyors of society’s institutionalized racism. To say otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of racism. The playing field is not yet level because the white power establishment is doing everything it can to maintain the power and control it has always possessed.

4) Blame the Victim
“We have advertised everywhere, there just aren’t any qualified people of color for this job.” OR:
“She uses racism as an excuse to divert us from her incompetence.” OR:
“If he only had a stronger work ethic.”

All ‘blame the victim’ behaviors have two things in common. First they evade the real problem: racism. Second they delete from the picture the agents of racism: white people and institutions which intentionally perpetuate or unintentionally collude with racism. As long as the focus remains on people of color we can minimize or dismiss their reactions and never have to look at our own responsibility or collusion with racism.

5) Innocent By Association
“I’m not racist because I have black friends” OR: “I marched with Dr. King.”

This detour from reality wrongly equates personal interactions with people of color with anti-racism. It assumes that our personal associations free us magically from our racist conditioning. They don’t.

6) The White Knight or White Missionary
“We (white people) know just where to build your new community center.”

It is a racist, paternalistic assumption that well-meaning white people know what’s best for people of color, and it implies that people of color are incapable of making their own decisions. Once more the power of self-determination is taken from people of color as though the only appropriate solutions lie with white people. Regardless of motive, it is all about white control.

7) The Isolationist

“I thought we resolved this issue (racism) when it came before the Board last year.” OR:
“We need to deal with this specific incident. Don’t complicate it by bringing up irrelevant incidences of the past.”

Attempts are made to isolate a particular incident of racism from its larger context and to avoid facing the reality of a pattern of racism within our organization or society. We often see incidents in a vacuum, or as an aberration in isolation from an historic pattern of racism. But Racism has been so institutionalized that every “incident” is another symptom of the pattern. “If we continue to react incident to incident, crisis to crises, as though they are unconnected, we will find genuine resolution only further from our reach.”

Several of the politicians mentioned above have attempted to do just what is described here: to isolate this particular shooting at Mother Emanuel Church from other shootings and events that are connected by the pattern of racism that they represent. This is exactly why Rick Perry tried to isolate this incident as an “accident,” and Lindsey Graham defined it as an “attack on Christians” -- so that it would not fit the pattern of racial attacks of the recent past (or of the distant past).

8) Bending Over Backwards
“Of course I agree with you” (said to a black person even when one disagrees)

We don’t criticize, disagree, challenge or question Black people the way we would other white people, or we don’t do it with the same conviction or intensity. “Our racism plays out as a different standard for people of color.” If this is a pattern, then one can “never have a genuine relationship with a person of color. We cannot grow to a deeper level of trust and intimacy with people of color we treat in this way.”

9) Teach Me, Please
“I want to stop acting like a racist, so please tell me when I do something you think is racist.”

White people too often assume we can learn about racism only from people of color, and further assume that people of color have the energy and/or desire to do this teaching. Her understanding is that most people of color are weary of educating white people about racism. Maybe white folks should seek help first from other white anti-racists. We can’t just assume that people of color should be so grateful for our attempts at learning about racism, that they will be willing to guide us whenever we are ready to be guided. Teaching should be at the discretion of people of color.

10) Certificate of Innocence

“Sometimes we seek or expect from people of color some public or private recognition and appreciation for our anti-racism. Other times we look for a certificate of innocence to tell us we are one of the good white people.”

If our ally commitment depends on positive reinforcement from people of color, we set ourselves up for failure. The first time that any displeasure with our actions is expressed, we could respond, “Well, if the people I’m doing all this for don’t want my help, then why bother. I quit.”

Clearly, we are challenging racism “for them” not for us. “Until we acknowledge a self-interest as white people in challenging racism, we will not stay on this lifelong journey.

11) Silence

Silence is complicated. It may be a product of guilt, of not wanting to disappoint other people, a fear of losing a privilege or a fear of violent reciprocity from other white people. Silence can be a good strategy at times, but more often, it represents a lost opportunity to act on behalf of anti-racism. Silence is too often the precursor to lack of action taken.

Return with me to the President’s speech. He decried the pattern. He showed the burden of the pattern. He decried the inaction of the Congress. He identified the issue of gun violence as one of the primary answers to WHY these things happen. But he did not deal forcefully with the underlying issue of white supremacy or of institutional racism. He shouldn’t have to.

It’s our responsibility, black and white, rich and poor, privileged and under-privileged alike. Racism is not simply a civil rights issue for a minority within a white power structure. It is a fundamental problem with our whole society, affecting all of our people, because in a democracy, based on interdependence and mutual responsibility, when one group is targeted for discrimination, the whole premise of equal justice is undermined. When one group is denigrated, castigated and seen as inferior, the whole premise of equality is damaged. When one individual of a denigrated minority is singled out for actions contrary to law, the civil and unalienable rights of all are put in jeopardy. We cannot proclaim exceptionality when every day brings another example of the pattern of racism to the forefront.

We have allowed a malignancy to eat at the foundations of our society, our institutions and our Constitutional government from the very beginning through to the present. It was built into our Constitution. It has been maintained by a white power structure that has rarely dealt unequivocally with it.

White people do have a personal self-interest in life-long engagement in recognizing and fighting racism in every aspect of our common life because the integrity of our proclamations and actions in regard to human rights faces disdain and rejection in other parts of the world, and because the very survival of our democratic values and standards is at stake. If we are who we say we are, then we must begin to learn a new language and new behaviors that authenticate true equality and justice for all. We must join in interracial dialogue and action so that we can reject and overcome white supremacy and build anti-racism as integral to the American Way.

6/12/2015

'WELL-FARING": Some Principles of a New Political-Social Continuum

In my last Post, we took a brief look at a continuum or spectrum of social action that might be a more revealing measure of political and social commitment and ideology than the popular ideology spectrum of the Left and the Right. That Post ended with something of a promise to explore some of the "principles" that might be behind such a new continuum. What follows is an attempt to at least partially address that promise.

1)   A while back, I pointed to the importance of research in the Shriver Report, and how it looked into 'real needs,' not needs that are fabricated to serve a political purpose only.

The Report was based on the analysis of those real needs existing in many communities. Secondly, there was time taken to hear from single women, as well as to interview many who were personally experiencing poverty or near poverty. Their personal stories often confirmed and enhanced the statistical data, but made their needs much more real and palpable. The biggest surprise was that the old stereotypes of "welfare queens" too "lazy" to work, and their "irresponsibility" went out the window as many of the women interviewed were not only confident about their futures but anxious to make their lives more meaningful and fulfilling. 

So one must be careful about defining needs, as they are not always what they seem. But, there are some common threads, and one of those threads appears to be "necessity." Need or necessity implies "a want, a lack, or a demand which must be filled." Necessity is a much stronger word in that it expresses some sort of urgency or imperative about the circumstance, the exigency, the time, the situation or condition involved. And that necessity is often found by certain conservative right-wing politicians in situations that have a moral condition as the measure of necessity. Abortion is a crisis because we are "killing babies." Terrorism is a moral question because radical Islamists have "no regard for innocent lives." Government, especially central government, is seen as "evil" because it tends, they say, to oppress the rights, freedoms and property of people. Deficits and debts in government budgets are seen as "demoralizing" and irresponsible. It goes on and on.

Strange then, don't you think, that the greatest ethical command of them all seems to get short shrift from those same moralists: "love your neighbor as yourself" or "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you." Oh, and don't forget that phrase at Judgment Day "inasmuch as you did it unto the least of these, who are my brethren, you did the same unto me." The obvious, but often over-looked, thread in need or necessity is people! People in need, people under duress, people with challenges, people living under conditions that have an urgency to them. It is why people's needs stand out in this continuum. There is an urgency - a necessity - to research those needs, to understand the problems that underlie those needs, and to come up with viable solutions to meet those needs so that the greatest number caught in those problems and those difficulties can be offered opportunities to get beyond them, to break out of chains that bind them and to find something in their lives that was before unattainable.

So let us first, above all, look for the real needs of people, not the needs made up by politicians who use them as "moral issues" to get elected. We don't need any more of that kind of non-representative government. Let "social needs" be defined by collecting scientific and personal data. What we need are office-seekers who want to be servants of the people; who want to solve the real problems and meet the real needs of the people they represent. The best way to find out what those problems and needs are is to ask!

All legislation should be required to reflect not just the constitutional basis for its wording, but should also specifically reflect the research done and the data gathered, as well as the opinions, stories, expressed needs and hopes of one's constituency in one's district or state. After all, these same lawmakers have proposed stringent research by those who apply for grants to help resolve problems in our society. If grant applicants have to prove their case in this way, why not require legislators to do the same?

Let me give you a few examples of federal grant requirements and guidelines that are included in a 60+ page guide:
  • a statement of need in which one must describe and cite data for labor market issues and the need for expanded use of alternative preparation of workers for careers in H-1B industries and occupations
  • provide evidence of skill gaps in the workforce and the training available to address these skill gaps
  • provide an inventory of innovations and training needed to develop and bring to scale the programs
  • cite evidence that demonstrates that the selected industries and/or occupations are ones for which employers currently seek H-1B visas
  • cite evidence of middle-skill jobs by identifying average wages offered
  • provide demographic data that assesses the potential participation of underrepresented groups in your Project
  • describe the overall goals as well as outcomes and outputs the project will achieve
  • outcomes and outputs must be an outgrowth of the strategic approach described; a quarterly report will be required of all grantees to demonstrate progress on key metrics as well as a description of activities and successes achieved
  • must provide a table and narrative that clearly identifies the overall goals, milestones, outputs, and outcomes that result from the project
What we desperately need is a similar guide book of requirements for writing legislation and for establishing evidence and proof for claimed purposes, outcomes and results for such legislation. It's far past time for "rules of the road" to apply equally to members of legislatures as they do to grant applicants. Perhaps we should require as a qualification for political office that candidates must demonstrate an ability to do research, to solve problems, to use modern technology and to define outcomes. It's just a thought...!

2) What is a "favorable outcome" in terms of this spectrum?

An 'outcome' is defined as "something that results from something; the consequence or issue."
'Favorable" is defined as: "something that affords aid, inclined to aid or improve; promising well-being or granting what is desired."

We could say that a favorable outcome is therefore something that produces a result that is inclined to aid someone or improve a situation; something that holds out the promise of well-being. I venture to say that this is surely what we want legislators to aim toward, for institutions and organizations to have as part of their mission, and for capitalists to attempt to achieve as they conduct business.

So often we ignore outcomes, particularly how to effect favorable results. But on a continuum concerned with favorable outcomes as the test of where one falls on that spectrum, it is imperative to place a much greater emphasis on this in whatever planning, legislating, aiding, or service of others we might engage.

 Does it strike you as it does me that too much legislation is written simply to meet a need for favored position or status as an outcome for the co-sponsors? Does it also strike you that some so-called service organizations spend much of their time fund-raising or socializing or serving a small population with little in the way of promise for a better life, providing instead mere temporary relief from exigencies of life for the persons they serve? I think we too often in human endeavor fail to think much about how to bring promise of well-being, hope for the future and opportunity for a better life. We get so involved in doing what has always been done, or accomplishing what others say we should, or pursuing programs instead of thinking of what can be done to bring a promise of something that makes recipients feel and say: "I never knew life could actually be different and full of promise!"

I think this may be one key to re-evaluating programs for those who have special needs or challenges. Let us not destroy social need programs as the Right-wingers want to do; but let us revive and reform and re-structure them to bring about favorable outcomes for people, with new opportunities and new promise for future well-being. Let us, to whatever extent we are able, build-in the outcomes we expect from the beginning. Let us not be shy or reluctant to propose favorable outcomes for people who need them.

Like "Obamacare." The Affordable Care Act has done just that. Perhaps that is why this is a milestone piece of legislation; precisely because it was backed by demographic and physical data and metrics; because it addressed real needs, not some made-up issues; because the desired results and outcomes were clearly defined and supported by activities and reforms that could lead to desirable outcomes for uninsured and under-insured citizens. It has done precisely what it was meant to do: provide affordable health care for a substantial number of our citizens (now over 12 million enrollees); reduce the precipitous rise in premium costs; establish new guidelines for insurance policies that wiped away certain prominent abuses of that system; provide consumer protections and on-going watch-dog efforts to assure that necessary reforms take place as needed; to reform and innovate ways to deliver services; and to strengthen Medicaid and Medicare coverage.

Republicans of all stripes want to repeal the Act. They have no data to support such a move; they have no proof that the ACA is failing -- in fact all the metrics indicate otherwise. They have no alternatives for providing better policies or health care. They have postured and prevaricated and become bombastic in their buffoonery. They claim socialism is taking over and that the health care system has been nationalized, even while their cronies in the health care industry continue to be the insurance carriers and the health care providers, growing richer every day. They are the biggest and most vocal bamboozlers on the planet today, and voters who buy in to their rhetoric will have only themselves to blame for the devastating consequences that continue to proliferate and that will explode if they keep voting for any of their ilk.

Republicans (and some so-called Democrats) have managed in the last seven years to block and/or destroy so many opportunities and favorable outcomes for the citizens of this country that it is a wonder the income gap is not larger than it is; or that the infrastructure does not completely collapse; or that the environment does not devour us whole as it moans and groans under climate changeable man-made pollution and destruction. The nay-sayers and provocateurs have attacked children (reduced social programs like Head Start and Food Stamps); attacked women (no equality in the workforce, no family leave; greater invasion of privacy and the relationship of women to their doctors); attack Seniors (raise age limit on Social Security; restrict Medicare provisions; devolve Medicaid to the states); attack Labor (attack bargaining rights; keep minimum wage at under-poverty level; devastate pensions; raise hours from 35 to 40 in order to qualify for health coverage by employer); attack Minorities (restrict and leave untouched a comprehensive immigration policy; militarize the police; stop and frisk; shoot any person of color you damn please without fear of reprisal; Supreme Court majority rulings favoring watering down of protections like search & seizure or the Castle doctrine or the need for a warrant to enter anyone's private space); attack Students (reduced Pell grants; refused to lower interest rates on student loans; want to privatize public education and block free education beyond high school).

How long can we continue to opt for ignorance, prejudice, political gamesmanship and volatile rhetoric as substitutes for intelligence, public service, and an ability to collect, analyze and make viable use of actual data and constituent opinions in order to produce favorable outcomes for all the citizens of this country? We must actually turn out a majority of voters from most of the attacked cohorts above in order to defeat the plurality now controlling election turn-out and election victories.

3) That old word "welfare" has been getting in the way of meaningful outcomes for a long time.

In fact, “welfare” has become, under the destructive rhetoric of the Right-wing, a dirty word, which was their intent all along. Richard Nixon began the attack and Ronald Reagan enshrined it for all time in the symbolism of a "welfare queen." And so, we have measured the "General Welfare" of our people, called for in the Preamble to our Constitution, by terms and definitions that do nothing but belie the true nature of "welfare." By making welfare equivalent to a handout to "undeserving" individuals, the right-wingers have devastated the true meaning of the Constitution, the true meaning of our Pledge to provide "liberty and justice for all," and the true meaning of the solemn oath to maintain a government that is "for the People."

Let us look again at the origins and definitions of that word to determine if something has been hidden or undermined by all their horrific rhetoric. The dictionary begins our quest for some sanity: welfare is "the state of faring well; well-being. It has moreover to do with the "physical or moral welfare of society." Right there is what I was talking about -- the hidden and buried truth of "welfare." It has to do with the moral welfare of our society, which means that the Republican conservatives have been missing their chance all along. They have found morality in everything else, but missed it in mounting their rhetorical attacks upon "welfare." So here is the other side, in my own words, writ large:

The General Welfare is not found primarily in so-called 'give-away programs' for the poor or under-privileged individuals of our society. The General Welfare is a moral obligation we have as a society to bring relief, hope, opportunity and promise of well-being to all those populations with special needs or circumstances. The measure of welfare is not the character of the individual who receives it, it is rather the moral character of the individual givers, institutions and governments that is at stake, for the moral welfare of our society is seriously at risk if we ignore the needs, aspirations and challenges of vulnerable populations.

This is what the neo-cons have always missed about welfare: that it has more to do with the well-being of society - the Givers - than it does with the character of individual recipients. The General Welfare of our democracy and our economic system is dependent upon our response to those in need.

Look again at the word "welfare." It is made up of two words: 'well' and 'fare.' "Fare" has to do with basics like food and travel. It also has to do with experiencing "good or bad fortune or treatment." The archaic origin suggests travel - "to go" or how one "gets on" in life. So 'well fare' is something like 'fare well' - a hope for faring well in this life. And so, we come round to a word we don't use that often, but one that was quite familiar to our Founding Fathers. The word is "Commonweal." It basically means the whole nation or the whole body politic. But there is another meaning, somewhat more obsolete, but certainly apropos to our discussion. It meant the 'common welfare;' the 'public good.'

All those negative terms that Republican neo-cons and some conservative Democrats have thrown at us for so long, take on a certain ignorance in the face of the meaning of the real words behind the General Welfare of the People, which is one major purpose of government and indeed for a democratic society in all its forms. We must not be engaged simply in 'temporary-relief' programs, or the construction of a 'safety net,' or the momentary rescue of some people from great distress. We are involved in a moral obligation and ethical movement to promote the public good; the common welfare, so that all society may fare well. Again, oft-derided “Obamacare” has done just exactly that.

Our obligation as citizens is not primarily to determine who is Left and Right and who is in the broad Center of a political system, particularly if one is not a political office-seeker or office-holder. Our obligation is to seek the public good, favorable and promising outcomes for all our people, and the well fare of our most vulnerable citizens. And so we ought to judge ourselves and our politicians and our private sector business leaders, not by a political spectrum, but by a continuum of public service and action; a continuum that measures our democratic and moral obligation to promote the faring well of all our citizens but particularly those who have fewer opportunities, who are held back by physical, emotional and mental challenges, who find themselves homeless or hungry or in poor health. We must step away from the rhetoric of the hate-mongers on the Right (and the Left) and step up to the role of champions and zealots and activists of favorable outcomes promising well-faring for all our people, especially for those who need an effective means of support and opportunity to "get-on" well.

Well-faring is our moral obligation.  Fare well!

 



6/05/2015

"HAVE DEMOCRATs PULLED TOO FAR LEFT?"

This interesting question appeared recently on the Opinion Pages of the NY Times. The writer, Peter Wehner, is a contributing opinion writer for the NYT. But, there's more on Mr. Wehner. According to Politico's The Arena. Wehner's mini-bio is as follows:

Peter Wehner, former Deputy Assistant to the President (George W. Bush) and Director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Mr. Wehner served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations prior to becoming deputy director of speech writing for President George W. Bush in 2001. In 2002, he was asked to head the Office of Strategic Initiatives, where he generated policy ideas, reached out to public intellectuals, published op-eds and essays, and provided counsel on a range of domestic and international issues. Prior to joining the Bush Administration, Wehner was executive director for policy for Empower America, a conservative public-policy organization. Mr. Wehner also served as a special assistant to the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and, before that, as a speech writer for then-Secretary of Education Bill Bennett.

Mr. Wehner writes widely on political, cultural, religious, and national-security issues. Since leaving the White House in 2007 he has written for Commentary, The Weekly Standard, National Review, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere. He also writes regularly for Commentary magazine’s blog “Contentions” and National Review Online. Mr. Wehner has also appeared as a commentator on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN television, and the BBC.
That perhaps tells us more than enough to understand why Wehner has attempted to place Democrats on the Left of an imaginary political spectrum that leads people into thinking that the Left-Right spectrum is the only one that matters. It isn't. Other categories of political divisions have been extant, and some have actually been used to measure divisions along ideological lines, such as:

PROGRESSIVE_____________________REGRESSIVE

LIBERAL__________________________CONSERVATIVE

REFORMIST_______________________REACTIONARY

COMMUNIST______________________CAPITALIST

SOCIALIST________________________FREE MARKET

EQALITY__________________________ELITISM (EXCEPTIONALISM)

In his Op-Ed piece on May 27th, Wehner compared both Barack Obama and current presidential contender Hillary Clinton to Bill Clinton back in the 1990's, indicating that both Obama and Hillary Clinton have moved to the left of Bill Clinton whom he reminds us ran as a "centrist New Democrat." Wehner's underlying themes present the same old Neo-Con agenda, and that is the more revealing narrative. So, let us compare what he says to what it really means.

1) "In the last two decades the Democratic Party has moved substantially further to the left than the Republican Party has shifted to the right. On most major issues the Republican Party hasn't moved very much from where it was during the Gingrich era in the mid-1990's."

What it Means: "The Republican Party really isn't as radical as you've heard, but watch out for Hillary!" This is his real theme and purpose for this article: to bash Obama's legacy, and to pin the term "radical leftist" on Hillary Clinton before she ever gets her campaign rolling. But, the Gingrich version of the Republican Party is exactly what the Tea Party revolt was against. They wanted conservatives to stand up for conservative principles rather than backing down in the face of Democratic opposition or bi-partisan compromise. No compromise. No equivocation. No quarter given to Leftists. No more central government power enhancements: no social programs, no restrictive regulations on businesses, few if any oversight agencies, no public ownership; no welfare programs. Some of their tactics: Privatize. Criticize. Evangelize. Pulverize. Racialize. Criminalize. Fantasize. Scandalize. Marginalize. Exceptionalize and above all, Prevaricate!

2) "To see just how far the Democratic Party has moved to the left, compare Barack Obama with Bill Clinton. In 1992, Mr. Clinton ran as a centrist New Democrat. In several respects he governed as one as well. He endorsed a sentencing policy of "three strikes and you're out," and he proposed adding 100,000 police officers to the streets. In contrast, President Obama's former Attorney General, Eric H. Holder, Jr., criticized what he called "widespread incarceration" and championed the first decrease in the federal prison population in more than three decades. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, has chosen to focus on police abuses."

What It Means: "Watch out for those Democrats (like Hillary) who focus on reducing prison populations" (to undo harsh restrictive sentencing of racial minority men for non-violent drug crime that was meted out or plea bargained because of unjust and unfair laws aimed at minorities). Especially "watch out for Democrats who don't put extra police on the beat or who focus on police abuses" or who don't treat police with deference, because without such protection, racial minorities are going to destroy your property and perhaps your life. Apparently, Mr. Wehner forgot that President Obama actually signed legislation that did fund extra police and other first responders (the Stimulus Act).

3) Even worse, Wehner goes after President Obama for loosening "welfare reform" restrictions made law under President Clinton, and further chides him for being more liberal than Bill Clinton on gay rights, religious liberties, abortion rights, drug legalization and climate change. But then emerges the talking point that always appears from a Conservative mouthpiece: "Mr. Obama is responsible for creating the Affordable Care Act, the largest new entitlement since the Great Society. He is the first President to essentially nationalize health care." 

What It Means: Surprisingly, Wehner comes out with it quite succinctly:

"Hillary Rodham Clinton, in positioning herself for the 2016 election, is decidedly more liberal than she or her husband once were on illegal immigration, gay marriage and incarceration. She has called to 'end the era of mass incarceration' and spoken about the importance of 'toppling' the wealthiest 1 percent. She has remained non-committal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership."
He then adds this tidbit: "The Democratic Party is now a pre-Democratic party, the result of Mr. Obama's own ideological predilections and the coalition he has built." 

So, he has attacked Hillary Clinton by associating her with liberal tendencies of President Obama and his administration, and then he looks back before the Clinton administration in order to remind readers to associate Hillary with a liberal agenda (when she was in college, for instance, she worked on behalf of Eugene McCarthy's nomination by traveling to New Hampshire to help with his campaign). He then concludes with an opinion laden, factually-limited defense of how Conservatives today have established themselves as the dominant party; and how they have opened up substantial leads on how they deal with terrorism, foreign policy and taxes. Can you say "WAR," "EXCEPTIONALISM" " and "CUT TAXES for the RICH"? 

In The Atlantic for Jun 20, 2014, Crispin Sartwell cautions us:

"The left-right divide might be a division between social identities based on class or region or race or gender, but it is certainly not a clash between different political ideas." We should arrange political positions according to whether they propose to increase hierarchy or to dismantle it. Instead of left and right, we should be thinking about vertical versus horizontal arrangements of power and wealth."


I partially agree with Sartwell and propose that we begin thinking, not in terms of ideological differences between the Left and the Right on a horizontal spectrum. I propose instead that we begin to think about political action, not just political ideas or thought. Indeed, it is my fervent belief that, in light of the prevailing divisions that exist between Right and Left, that we abandon that false premise in favor of a new spectrum. I am of the opinion that we should judge the political parties on the basis of the actions they take, not the words they speak, for words are cheap in terms of results.

I propose that we change the conversation and begin to measure politicians and would-be politicians, and one's own political orientation perhaps, on the basis of what best serves the People of this nation; on the basis of what actions help enhance the everyday life experience of the broadest representative number of the People; on the basis of what best promotes the welfare of the greatest number of our citizens and non-citizens; on the basis of what actions produce the most effective opportunities for the greatest number of the People; finally, on the basis of what the People actually say are the most effective outcomes for them because of actions undertaken on their behalf.

We have never been just a nation of ideologues and cheap-shot artists whose target is the diminution of other people and of ideas different from their own. We are a nation of activists who believe that we must participate in our communities, our states, and our national issues and concerns in order to keep alive and well the values and freedoms that have sustained us throughout our history. Beyond all the rhetoric, we have always acted upon beliefs, ideas and values. We have always maintained that helping our neighbors is paramount to a thriving democracy like ours. We are "joiners" because we believe fervently that groups united in a cause benefit our country and our own lives. We are a nation of people who care about people of other cultures and nations; we have long led the world in our generosity and charity beyond our borders. We have been a nation of People who cared about how the most vulnerable among us are treated. Parents, grandparents, neighbors, philanthropists have often joined together to enhance a community's response to basic needs that have gone unattended. We are a people who don't wait for someone else to tell us what to do, we see a problem, we organize to solve it, or at least to abate its effects.

We are not a nation of haters; although we know we harbor many within our borders who hate others and they come in various forms - some hate other races and cultures, some despise those down on their luck who need a helping hand, some hate Jews, or Christians, or Muslims; some hate those who look or act differently from some imagined norm - members of the LGBT community, or persons with disabilities. Haters include those who want to destroy this nation with some form of terrorism - be it a War on Drugs that ends up a war on racial groups; bellicose advocates of war against other nations, militarization of police forces, denial of long-protected civil rights such as the vote or unwarranted search and seizure, or unequal application of laws and protections. Haters are also terrorists in other senses - they want to destroy our nation and its people by bombing, maiming or committing crimes that take something precious from others including life itself.

But, hate is not our standard practice. Tearing down democratic standards and rights and freedoms is not our national goal. Treating government as the source of our problems and then using it to force one Party's thoughts and actions and goals upon us all is not our mission. The fundamental mission of all of our basic institutions, including government, is the welfare, protection and enhancement of the well-being of all our People, applied equally. It is time to judge our progress in that mission, not on ideologies conceived and promoted by demagogues who seek power for themselves rather than using their delegated powers to perform on behalf of their constituency.

It is time to characterize our political nature by actions that beget the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Finally then, my own proposal for a spectrum (below) that measures where one falls on a scale that makes sense in a democracy, and yes, in a capitalist economic system. It is a vertical spectrum that looks at where one falls in terms of actions, not words, and it has little to do with whether your beliefs have been tainted by the Left or the Right of political thought; here we are all measured for what we do on behalf of other people, whether as an individual or as part of a group or organization.

However, we cannot afford to be naive about what political ideologies can do to such a concept. They can destroy it of course, and not without malice. For instance, from the Right wing, we could have people defining outcomes in terms of how many abortions they were able to prevent instead of how many babies (and mothers) they could assist by promoting world-class pre-natal care. Or, from the Left, we could have good outcomes for people defined by an over-abundance of government programs that begin to replace non-profit organizations. Neither approach to good works and effective outcomes is acceptable. And that is why a proposed measurement of actions on a spectrum like this must begin with principles and guidelines for defining "need" and "outcomes" and "welfare." 

That is the very trouble with the Left-Right continuum: it often fails to define terms or principles, so that words like "leftist" or "socialist" or even "the Left" along with words like "conservative" or "Right-wing" or "reactionary" or "regressive" are equally vague but become epithets all by themselves with no demand for definition or explanation. This is where we stand today: the Left-Right spectrum is simply a meaningless jumble of undefined, rhetorical catch-phrases that are used as weapons of political warfare rather than as a measure of what one believes and what one does to effectuate those beliefs. We are the victims of a political device that affects people running for office but which does nothing constructive for the vast majority of our citizens. It is devoid of authenticity.

Let us then return to some foundational principles, values and norms that might underlie the vertical continuum of effective positive outcomes of actions taken on behalf of the People of this country. What I will propose is a starting point, not a be-all and end-all product. This spectrum needs to be able to evolve and not remain static. The next posting will address this subject, so "tune-in next time."

 

A Proposed New Spectrum
 

10 - Champion of others' rights and welfare - part of at least 10 documented favorable outcomes

9 - Zealot on behalf of others' rights and welfare - part of at least 9 favorable outcomes

8. - Activist for rights and welfare of others - part of at least 8 favorable outcomes

7 - Promoter of others' rights and welfare - part of at least 7 favorable outcomes

6 - Organizer on behalf of others' rights and welfare - part of at least 6 favorable outcomes

5 - Performer of routine duty toward others' rights and welfare - part of at least 5 favorable outcomes

4 - Promulgator of actions on behalf of others' rights and welfare - part of at least 4 good outcomes

3 - Developer of actions on behalf of others' rights and welfare - part of at least 3 good outcomes

2 - Doer - of actions on behalf of others' rights and welfare - part of at least 2 outcomes

1 - Initiator - part of at least one favorable outcome for others' welfare