While right-wing pundits furiously try to spin Rev. Wright's comments as speaking for anyone other than Rev. Wright, it's vital that progressive observers and commentators remember that their machine will do anything -- anything -- to confuse people and divert attention from the failures of conservative governance. On the economy, on values, on social policy, and, perhaps most of all given the current situation in Iraq, on foreign affairs.
Our policies in Iraq -- not to mention places like Pakistan, Indonesia, Somalia, Iran, North Korea -- make America and the world a more dangerous place. Expert upon expert and report after report say so, and they're correct. The right wing wants to tie this common-sense argument to controversial figures so they can marginalize ideas along with individuals, and it's a smear tactic that can be devastating if people don't stand up and identify it for what it is. They're not making substantive critiques, they're using the politics of destruction and distraction.
After five years of war in Iraq, with constant reports coming out about letting terrorists escape in Afghanistan, failing to support non-proliferation in Pakistan, and neglecting the peace process while simultaneously inflaming countries in the Middle East, America will not be fooled by conservative claims that the US is doing just fine in foreign policy. Obviously our mistakes, historical and recent, do not justify the unacceptable and unforgivable targeting of civilians by terrorist actions, and people understand that -- so when right-wing talking heads try to paint a position shared by the majority of Americans as soft on terror, or self-hating, or some other such slander, they do so because they have no ideas about how to improve our country's security other than to lash out (preferably at the wrong people and places, it seems). Wanting to improve our foreign policy -- and our nation more generally -- isn't a lack of patriotism, but rather its highest form.
I don't believe it's in the American character to bully, and I mean that in terms of macro policies as well as in the micro political sense. But there will always be bullies, and they won't fight fair. We preserve our dignity and our ideology by pushing back strongly and honestly, and we can't sell out our ideas simply because they are sometimes adopted and warped by individuals who occasionally find themselves with a megaphone. The media won't help us, of course; nothing gets the media giddy like a lefty who doesn't "properly" self-censor. But we can't be distracted, we can't accept the right when it frames mainstream ideas through controversial individuals, and we must constantly remind Americans -- as well as ourselves -- that the country is moving steadily in our direction, even (perhaps especially) on difficult, personal, emotional issues. And in that evolving discussion and political movement, we must not let others tell us what we believe. We're right on foreign policy, on education, on health care, on jobs, on individual rights, on the environment, and more. We shouldn't let anyone turn those ideas into caricature, and we damn sure shouldn't caricature ourselves in response to smears and lies.
I've been occasionally following the discussions of Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism," and Sam Boyd hits on a crucial point in terms of the entire analysis:
Goldberg reminds me of a friend of mine with a taste for arguments about philosophy. His secret was that he cheated. He'd argue some seemingly absurd premise but then retreat to a definition of a key word that was so different from a reasonable one that it was unrecognizable. You'd try and keep in mind his weird vocabulary, but the words maintained the force of their original meaning and it was hard to keep your argument straight. A similar thing is going on with Godlberg.
I don't have much to add to that very solid analysis, except to say that this kind of bait-and-switch, whether about words or concepts, seems to be increasingly prevalent on the right. I think this is mostly because so many conservative ideas have been implemented to such disastrous results that there's an intense period of rationalization going on. In my little area of knowledge, though, I notice it most often with talk of the surge. Since it didn't work as planned, now proponents are retreating to talking about it as focused on something totally different. It's nearly impossible to have an honest discussion about significant ideas when this is the default style of argumentation.
Now, while I like Joe Klein more than many of my blogospheric peers, I also know it's true that he's sometimes susceptible to the siren song of centrism. So when you try for a sweeping bipartisan movement and he slaps down the idea, you probably should pack it in. In a post titled "Bad Idea", he writes:
New York Mayor Bloomberg's idea for a summit meeting of aging moderate poobahs to discuss an independent third party seems a bit moldy to me. Not that I'm opposed to centrism--as regular readers of Swampland know very well, I'm sort of an aging moderate not-quite-poobah myself. But there is no real potential for a moderate third party this year, and no real need for it, either. [...] Every four years, we get a group of high-minded Mugwumps who are just shocked and appalled by the messiness of the democratic process and yearn for something more pristine.
I love it! He goes on to explain why this is true, citing reasons more detailed (but similar to) mine, and I couldn't agree more.
There's been another bump in the talk of a third party run for president, mostly focused on New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. It's pretty irritating, and it's largely led by media and political elites who talk a big game about democracy but seem to be horrified the actual process of it. Basically the people who promote "unity" or "coalition" third party presidential runs either don't understand the US electoral/political system, or they don't think it caters to their very particular desires, or both. Really, few things make me crazier than this stuff, for two reasons:
First, there are almost *never* actual policy positions proposed on these issues. Anybody know what, say, Bloomberg thinks about immigration? Choice? Guns? And let's not even get into how just a few years ago, every single talking head on my teevee told me no one could ever again be elected president without extensive foreign policy experience, but what might his views be there? It's insipid. Further, the third party possibilities proposed by the elites (as opposed to those who actually get votes, like Perot), tend to be Republicans who are . . . acting like Democrats. Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger are two prime examples: anywhere but NY and CA, these guys are Dems, and it's not like they're implementing a conservative agenda. But ultimately that means they wouldn't have any kind of national constituency. More after the jump...
The second reason it makes me crazy is a little more personal. You see, the people who support this kind of foolishness tend to be overwhelmingly like me, at least demographically speaking. In other words, the privileged: white, upper middle class, male, coastal. It's embarrassing! This is a group that largely wants everything to stay just as it is, except for maybe helping people in need a little better. To them, Edwards is a Commie and Hillary is too "polarizing," but all of the Republicans are insane. But fundamentally, they all agree with Democratic *positions*, they just don't like to be associated with the actual constituencies of the party (the great unwashed! /eye roll/). Despite being billed as some radical solution to all the "gridlock," what these people most want is for virtually nothing to change. Anyway, the whole thing is about filling air time on the 24-hour news channels, but seriously, if in 40 years I start pontificating about how we need to bypass the electorate by installing a billionaire "centrist" technocrat, somebody please kill me (or at least send me this post).
Current South African president Mbeki is finishing his second (and final) term as president though he hoped to maintain control of the ruling ANC. Controlling the primary political party essentially means controlling the government in South Africa. Yesterday the ANC party members voted for the leadership role yesterday and Mbeki lost badly to Jacob Zuma. In recent years Zuma has faced trial for rape (he was acquitted) and has also faced charges of corruption. The corruption charges have not yet been put to rest and could come back to end his career.
Outside of South Africa, Mbeki is best known for his bizarre theories on HIV/AIDS. Internally, Mbeki was viewed as an unpleasant, technocrat who never managed to connect with the people. Years after apartheid, the problem of poverty is still very present though it is hard to deny the growth of the black middle and upper class. The problem has been the limits of that growth and the continuing misery of millions.
(More after the jump on Zuma and changes for South Africa.) Zuma has his own strange beliefs on the subject of HIV/AIDS (just take a shower after sex) but he has been able to connect with the people around the country. Whether Zuma has the ability to grow the middle class, it's hard to say.
I spent half a year traveling around South Africa a few years ago and visited numerous "townships" across the country. What jumped out to me was that there were so many hard working people who lived in such poverty. We befriended a young South African who invited us to his house and meet the family in one particular township. His mother worked in a posh hotel, traveling by bus every day and working long hours, though she still had very little to show for her efforts.
The house was a very basic square (as you see in most townships) that did not include any modern conveniences in the kitchen and was sparsely filled. It was amazing to see such a hard working family have so little. It's not that I don't understand the local economics in such places, but in South Africa you constantly stumble upon such great discrepancies between rich and poor. Change can't happen overnight but the ANC has been in power since 1994 and it's not unreasonable to expect a little more.
Mbeki can be credited with maintaining a good economy and keeping foreign investment but times have changed and people want more. Hard working people have every right to expect that their lot in life improve if they put their nose to the grindstone. If anything, this is a healthy development that more people want to join the middle class.
The challenge in the future will be whether Zuma can maintain economic growth while expanding the middle class. The biggest fear among some is the possibility of expanding the old boy network, with all of the favors-to-friends that too often dominates politics. Of course, Zuma also needs to get beyond his existing corruption problems.
I had the strongest sense of deja vu reading this fantastic piece on how *depressing* it is to be informed these days. I don't know if I read a similar article before, or if it's just something I've been thinking about for a while, but the tagline really sums it up well: "Staying informed has become -- for so many of us -- a moral obligation that feels like hell."
As the author, Courtney Martin, laments,
Some weekends it feels like a masochistic, last-ditch effort to keep myself from going numb. Some weekends, I can hardly read the headlines without feeling myself being pulled into a morass of 21st century existential pain over the challenges of living aware in a globalized world with so much violence, soulless bureaucracy, and disappointing leadership. . . .
It seems to be that we haven't figured out systems -- educational, governmental, non-governmental -- for actualizing the inevitable outrage, sadness, and empathy that we feel as a direct result of contemporary world news.
I've been a news junkie ever since I can remember, and I was giddy when the internet made available more news and analysis on more topics and issues than I ever could have imagined. There's only so much one can read, though, so I started with mostly domestic electoral politics and foreign policy. And there's enough depressing news on those topics to last a lifetime.
A while ago, though, I decided to add to my list of topics to know something about. I decided that I knew embarrassingly little about health care, so I read a few books and started reading health care blogs. Not surprisingly, this is a pretty gloomy subject: lots of people uninsured, underinsured, and generally getting screwed.
Then, God help me, I added some feminist blogs to the rotation. And sure, everybody knows that women are mistreated in a variety of contexts, but when you read the actual stories, day after day, at home and abroad, it's really quite horrifying.
Plus economics here, global warming there, and poverty way over there (but wait, also here), it's pretty overwhelming -- and more importantly, it seems like nothing one individual (or even a small group of individuals) would even begin to make a dent.
No wonder I've made CuteOverload a part of the rotation -- adorable animals are the only thing that can push back against this onslaught . . .
I'm very much a layman when it comes to the ENDA debate -- sure, I'm relatively well-read and well-informed on the issues, and gays and lesbians are a huge part of my family and friend groups, but without the legitimacy of a personal stake in the debate, I've largely avoided weighing in. But the discussion of it here has been so interesting and provocative that I can't help but jump in to note my agreement with John and others who would rather see a GLB ENDA pass in Congress than a GLBT ENDA get voted down.
It's been baffling to me to *yet again* see Democrats, progressives, and activists ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Thirty years to get to this point. Thirty years! And people want a symbolic defeat? For what? For what? These things are wars of attrition; any movement one way or the other is important. You don't win wars by giving up territory because it's not big enough, and to put forth a bill that won't pass instead of an almost-as-good one that will is ceding territory. You don't give up a golden opportunity to benefit tens of millions of people just because it's not 100% perfect. Passing the ENDA bill as it's been written for decades isn't abandoning people, it's establishing a damn foot in the door.
It's fascinating to watch this argument play out, because to a large extent the two sides are talking about totally different things. Broadly speaking: On one side, people support including T because it's the right/moral thing to do. On the other, those who would accept a non-T ENDA say it's a good pragmatic, political move (which is its own moral argument, I think, if not specifically presented as such). Here's the thing: I haven't read a single persuasive argument that putting up a T-inclusive ENDA to get voted down in Congress (which it assuredly would, whereas a GLB ENDA would just as assuredly pass) would help the cause of T (not to mention GLB) rights, either in short or long term. Opposing a non-T ENDA is about the symbolism and ideals, rather than tangible benefit or strategy.
I'll take this one step further: Some commenters have opposed a non-T ENDA by asking the question, if ENDA covered, say, just lesbians, should we still support it? The question is meant rhetorically, as if the idea is too ridiculous to be contemplated, but I think one could make a persuasive case that the answer should be . . . yes! If that would pass Congress, and no more progressive alternatives would, you do it. If the most progressive bill you can get through Congress is to create legal protection for all lesbians named Jane in towns whose names start with "W" then you pass that. I'm not saying pass less than you can, but don't torpedo something by including something you *know* is a poison pill. You get what you can, when you can get it. Then when people see that the world hasn't ended, and there are benefits, and we haven't all immediately gone to hell, there's more room for even more advancement.
There's this idea that rights would go to GLB *at the expense of* T. I think that is a serious mischaracterization of the situation. This debate is not about whether transgender inclusion has to wait -- that is, unfortunately and sadly, a foregone conclusion. Either it will wait because it's not included, or it will wait because it is included and the bill resultingly fails. Again, a GLB passes in Congress, a GLBT bill doesn't. There is a chance, however, to move forward on rights for tens of millions, and it would be a shame (and a decided failure) to reject that opportunity.
Can you imagine if people had told black Americans they had to wait for the right to vote until women got it as well? After all, that's a similar oppression. Or if we had said a disabled person shouldn't have employment protections until gays could too? Partial victories set the stage for further victory; partial failures set the stage for further failures. The right understand that, but we forget it far too often. (On the opposite side, think about the choice battle: Abortion rights have been whittled down time and time again, and it certainly isn't because choice foes refused to pass bills unless they outlawed abortion altogether.)
It's important to note that I have nothing but respect for those who have honest and sound disagreements on this. I think the vast majority of people who reject a non-T ENDA do so for principled and idealistic reasons, and this is obviously an issue that friends disagree on. Still, I would much prefer an ENDA that passes Congress to one that goes down in flames.
This is a very different post for AMERICAblog, but you may find it interesting, thought-provoking, and very much about American culture.
I have quite a few posts on the politics of having kinky hair over at my blog. In the past, people sometimes emailed me to say that they didn't understand how or why hair is political. After Don Imus and the whole "nappy-headed hos" mess, they got a taste of why it is very political. What the former radio talk show host did was touch upon the third rail of race in a way opened up discussions of matters not usually heard in public conversations.
Most black women know what it's like to have an arsenal of hair care products, particularly if you choose to wear your hair straightened with chemical relaxers. [Ironically, most of the Rutgers women's basketball team members had chemically straightened hair, which goes to show you that Imus reduced them to his assumption that black women=nappy hair=unattractive.] I had a cabinet full of "hair product" when I wore processed styles.
And oh, the dreaded hot comb. I am old enough to have experienced the "pleasure" of the thermal hot comb -- you rested it over the gas flame of the stove to heat it up. Then the pressing oil was carefully applied to your hair and that comb sizzled through the kinks till it was bone straight, hissing as you prayed the comb didn't touch your scalp. This is what black women did to emulate straight hair. I say emulate because all it took was water or merely a humid day to revert the hair back to its natural state. But that was the only acceptable style for the working black woman working in the dominant culture.
In 2005 I was interviewed by Heather Barnes, who was working on a documentary project on women and their relationship to their hair from a personal and political perspective. Her blog for the project, Hair Stories, is up and running.
The stories might relate to shaving, first haircuts, having long or short hair, losing their hair, hair and ethnicity, stigma about body hair (either too much or too little), and the cultural and social significance of hair in all its manifestations.
Here's my interview. She's intercut it with photos from my hair journey web page. When you watch it you'll see a tortured hair history in the school photos -- while I'm the product of two black parents, neither had kinky hair; it took a while for my mom to figure out how to take care of mine, particularly dealing with the humidity in NC.
Full freedom for me finally came when I decided in the 90s to toss out the relaxer and cut the dry damaged hair off. I wore a short natural for several years. I began the process of growing locs in November 2000, a style I wear today. Free from the burning hot comb sizzling my scalp, curling irons, flat irons or other instruments of hair torture.
The status quo is still straightened hair, even though we see more natural styles in vogue now. Black women are unfortunately still chastised by family and significant others not to 1) cut their hair or 2) let it be kinky. It's one of those "dirty laundry" matters that people don't want to discuss openly, but when you have such poisonous, enabled self-loathing, it needs sunlight upon it. Look at this ad. It implies that the woman got the job because her hair was chemically straightened. The self-loathing is so culturally ingrained, so pathological -- there is nothing wrong with our hair, but nearly every signal received by the dominant culture is that it needs to be "corrected."
