Solomon Northrup Syndrome, White Privilege,
and
the Myths of “Isolated Incidents” and “Bad Actors"
We live in a society which is not all that different from America in the 1850s, where every black man in the North was viewed with suspicion and believed to be a runaway slave. No matter how many white people see “12 Years a Slave” there is a consciousness gap between Solomon Northup’s plight and our current society when, in fact, the worlds are very much the same.
That Northrup, despite having papers proving him a free man, was sold into slavery, is not different from the situation of many African-American citizens today. The assumption that Northrup was a slave, evidenced by his skin color, is no different than the assumption that African-American men in 2016 are inherently criminal and a police officer should approach a black man’s car with a broken tail light with a weapon drawn. Black men selling loose cigarettes and CDs on the street (and do we question why grown men are reduced to such means of scraping a living together?) are somehow seen as threats inciting lethal force. When Colorado movie theaters and Planned Parenthood clinics are shot to shreds do we immediately hear about whether those (white) perpetrators had any criminal records --- as we always do when we first learn about black victims (Garner,Brown, Gray, Castile, Stirling), as if, somehow, a past record justifies an execution.
Let’s also dispel some other prominent media myths while we’re at it. If we hadn’t seen consecutive killings in early July 2016, we undoubtedly would have heard local authorities decrying each event as an “isolated incident” committed by a “bad actor” or “bad apple.” When we see a video on Monday and then another on Tuesday, filmed 1200 miles apart, depicting a scene we are all too familiar with now, it is difficult to see these “incidents” as isolated and the perpetrators as a rare “bad apple.” White America has suddenly been confronted with a reality channel it has to pay attention to.
The Dallas event was tragic, but it distracts from the more systemic issue of the Solomon Northrup Syndrome. I was raised during the 1950s and ‘60s in the New York metropolitan area in a household where I never heard the “n” word --- despite being a low income, working class family. Nonetheless, our neighborhood (a development a la Levittown) was totally white and we knew, early on, where the black neighborhood was. Growing up in the midst of the JFK/LBJ/MLK Civil Rights era, I still was part of a white, male, homophobic and racist culture. Despite playing football, basketball, and track on very integrated teams, there was no cross race socializing and it was not unusual to hear the white boys, when alone, spew racist sentiments (never grounded in any evidence, of course). If you grow up in a totally white world you buy into the prevailing mythic narrative that America is, indeed, “the land of the free and home of the brave.” You pay your respects to MLK and Jackie Robinson but there really isn’t much beyond that. White people live in a world of privilege and silence, believing in “progress,” despite statistical evidence to the contrary. And the Solomon Northrup Syndrome persists. Blacks, particularly young black men, are seen as potential criminals, as threats and, somehow, more prone to violence. The media, run by white people (mostly men) perpetuates this through not only its news coverage but with its entertainment and commercials, too. The major networks as well as cable and subscription outlets are overwhelmingly white dominant (think #oscarssowhite). And racial profiling goes far beyond law enforcement (see: Racial Bias, Even When We Have Good Intentions By Sendhil Mullainathan, Jan. 3, 2015 New York Times, which clearly illustrates workplace and other institutional bias).
Those who oppose affirmative action will dispute an article like Mullainathan’s because it is published in the New York Times --- but you can find these statistics all over the internet and they clearly prove the Solomon Northrup Syndrome. The problem, dear white citizens, is that we have, since 1619, created a system which privileges one group over another (based on skin color) and instills in that privileged group the belief that the “other” is, in fact, less human, less intelligent, less “deserving,” than we. Only good for entertainment purposes (sports and music, in particular), these people are inherently unequal. And most of us live in a white bubble world that denies the cries from our black neighbors (“Oh, it can’t be that bad. The police wouldn’t do that if they didn’t have a reason.”) Many who oppose affirmative action, who want to “take America back again” (or “Make America Great/White Again”) are reacting, in some degree, to the heresy that a black man has become President of the United States. They will argue that there is no such thing as “white privilege,” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The challenge for white people is not to bicker about “my family never owned slaves,” or “I’m not responsible for what happened 200 years ago,” but to recognize that the system is specifically designed to benefit us. Denying white privilege (as right wing radio and TV does all the time) is simply denying facts and U.S. history for what it is. Those people notwithstanding, how do white people begin to discuss the realities of our country and our country’s legacy? It wasn’t simply slavery it was --- and is --- the attendant mindset that accompanies white people who persist in supporting institutions that are clearly biased in favor of one group at the expense of another. When will white people begin having honest discussions among themselves about their privilege? In a commencement speech at Howard University on June 4, 1965 Lyndon Johnson said:
You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. (Italics & emphasis, mine)
A half century later we have to honestly look back and ask if we, white people, ever honestly moved to that next stage of the civil rights battle: equality as a fact and as a result. Simply electing a black man President does not absolve us of the sins of our history and does not at all mean we live in an equitable society. Those who incorrectly believe we are now in some post-racial society have not walked in the shoes of our black citizens --- or even considered it!
We are not being confronted with a police problem or a political problem --- we are faced with a historical problem about race which has existed since that first ship arrived in 1619 -- a question that has been ducked and avoided by white people ever since. Re-enactors raised a Confederate flag in front of the South Carolina capitol this past weekend. I doubt they were discussing white privilege and considering the historical burden of slavery on our national consciousness. Another quote attributed to Lyndon Johnson may better speak to one more core issue we need to face:
I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
Our politicians and business leaders have played to FEAR and race/class conflicts (as we’re seeing in our current Presidential race) to their advantage and our detriment. It is time for white people to start having honest conversations about the world we have created in the United States and consider how to mend the deep and troubled scars inflicted on us all. It is time to dispel age old myths, eliminate the Solomon Northrup Syndrome, and push ourselves toward equality as a fact and result based on our difficult and honest work.
July 11, 2016
That Northrup, despite having papers proving him a free man, was sold into slavery, is not different from the situation of many African-American citizens today. The assumption that Northrup was a slave, evidenced by his skin color, is no different than the assumption that African-American men in 2016 are inherently criminal and a police officer should approach a black man’s car with a broken tail light with a weapon drawn. Black men selling loose cigarettes and CDs on the street (and do we question why grown men are reduced to such means of scraping a living together?) are somehow seen as threats inciting lethal force. When Colorado movie theaters and Planned Parenthood clinics are shot to shreds do we immediately hear about whether those (white) perpetrators had any criminal records --- as we always do when we first learn about black victims (Garner,Brown, Gray, Castile, Stirling), as if, somehow, a past record justifies an execution.
Let’s also dispel some other prominent media myths while we’re at it. If we hadn’t seen consecutive killings in early July 2016, we undoubtedly would have heard local authorities decrying each event as an “isolated incident” committed by a “bad actor” or “bad apple.” When we see a video on Monday and then another on Tuesday, filmed 1200 miles apart, depicting a scene we are all too familiar with now, it is difficult to see these “incidents” as isolated and the perpetrators as a rare “bad apple.” White America has suddenly been confronted with a reality channel it has to pay attention to.
The Dallas event was tragic, but it distracts from the more systemic issue of the Solomon Northrup Syndrome. I was raised during the 1950s and ‘60s in the New York metropolitan area in a household where I never heard the “n” word --- despite being a low income, working class family. Nonetheless, our neighborhood (a development a la Levittown) was totally white and we knew, early on, where the black neighborhood was. Growing up in the midst of the JFK/LBJ/MLK Civil Rights era, I still was part of a white, male, homophobic and racist culture. Despite playing football, basketball, and track on very integrated teams, there was no cross race socializing and it was not unusual to hear the white boys, when alone, spew racist sentiments (never grounded in any evidence, of course). If you grow up in a totally white world you buy into the prevailing mythic narrative that America is, indeed, “the land of the free and home of the brave.” You pay your respects to MLK and Jackie Robinson but there really isn’t much beyond that. White people live in a world of privilege and silence, believing in “progress,” despite statistical evidence to the contrary. And the Solomon Northrup Syndrome persists. Blacks, particularly young black men, are seen as potential criminals, as threats and, somehow, more prone to violence. The media, run by white people (mostly men) perpetuates this through not only its news coverage but with its entertainment and commercials, too. The major networks as well as cable and subscription outlets are overwhelmingly white dominant (think #oscarssowhite). And racial profiling goes far beyond law enforcement (see: Racial Bias, Even When We Have Good Intentions By Sendhil Mullainathan, Jan. 3, 2015 New York Times, which clearly illustrates workplace and other institutional bias).
Those who oppose affirmative action will dispute an article like Mullainathan’s because it is published in the New York Times --- but you can find these statistics all over the internet and they clearly prove the Solomon Northrup Syndrome. The problem, dear white citizens, is that we have, since 1619, created a system which privileges one group over another (based on skin color) and instills in that privileged group the belief that the “other” is, in fact, less human, less intelligent, less “deserving,” than we. Only good for entertainment purposes (sports and music, in particular), these people are inherently unequal. And most of us live in a white bubble world that denies the cries from our black neighbors (“Oh, it can’t be that bad. The police wouldn’t do that if they didn’t have a reason.”) Many who oppose affirmative action, who want to “take America back again” (or “Make America Great/White Again”) are reacting, in some degree, to the heresy that a black man has become President of the United States. They will argue that there is no such thing as “white privilege,” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The challenge for white people is not to bicker about “my family never owned slaves,” or “I’m not responsible for what happened 200 years ago,” but to recognize that the system is specifically designed to benefit us. Denying white privilege (as right wing radio and TV does all the time) is simply denying facts and U.S. history for what it is. Those people notwithstanding, how do white people begin to discuss the realities of our country and our country’s legacy? It wasn’t simply slavery it was --- and is --- the attendant mindset that accompanies white people who persist in supporting institutions that are clearly biased in favor of one group at the expense of another. When will white people begin having honest discussions among themselves about their privilege? In a commencement speech at Howard University on June 4, 1965 Lyndon Johnson said:
You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. (Italics & emphasis, mine)
A half century later we have to honestly look back and ask if we, white people, ever honestly moved to that next stage of the civil rights battle: equality as a fact and as a result. Simply electing a black man President does not absolve us of the sins of our history and does not at all mean we live in an equitable society. Those who incorrectly believe we are now in some post-racial society have not walked in the shoes of our black citizens --- or even considered it!
We are not being confronted with a police problem or a political problem --- we are faced with a historical problem about race which has existed since that first ship arrived in 1619 -- a question that has been ducked and avoided by white people ever since. Re-enactors raised a Confederate flag in front of the South Carolina capitol this past weekend. I doubt they were discussing white privilege and considering the historical burden of slavery on our national consciousness. Another quote attributed to Lyndon Johnson may better speak to one more core issue we need to face:
I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
Our politicians and business leaders have played to FEAR and race/class conflicts (as we’re seeing in our current Presidential race) to their advantage and our detriment. It is time for white people to start having honest conversations about the world we have created in the United States and consider how to mend the deep and troubled scars inflicted on us all. It is time to dispel age old myths, eliminate the Solomon Northrup Syndrome, and push ourselves toward equality as a fact and result based on our difficult and honest work.
July 11, 2016
Thoughtful Response to "Solomon Northrup"
My friend, esteemed classmate (Yale'71) and recently retired Federal Magistrate, James D. (Jim) Moyer offered the following response to the Northrup essay on July 12th and has given me permission to share it. Always thoughtful, Jim provides a succinct yet thorough analysis of factors not touched on (or not probed deeply) in the "Solomon Northrup" essay. I thank Jim for allowing me to publish his response. Further responses can be e-mailed to johnsoneducation71@gmail.com
I have been reading some of your excellent commentary. I suggest a few slightly different thoughts.
We should not operate on an analysis that the problems of policing, deadly force, and over-enforcement in minority communities are attributable to a single factor. Most complicated situations have multiple causes. Attribution of everything to systemic racism lets us off the hook of looking hard at the complexity. Certainly we have a huge hangover from slavery in our nation (I live half the year in a border state and the rest of the year in northern Appalachia and it's impossible to miss).
But other factors must be considered. At the top of the list might be our national obsession with firearms and the fact that we have flooded our communities with military grade hardware. Any police officer must be legitimately wary of contacts with people who may be carrying concealed weapons.
Another factor is our poor level of mental health services. Sandy Hook and Gabby Giffords and the Aurora theater come quickly to mind.
Another factor is our willful blindness about data and the lack of careful analysis with respect to the deaths of citizens by police shootings. The recent study by an African-American professor at Harvard suggests various complexities -- he concludes that there are disparities in law enforcement contacts, but not in fatal shootings. See also yesterday's article refuting Rudy Giuliani in the Washington Post. We don't keep the data and so we ... assume, based on our cultural stereotypes. One cultural stereotype is that cops are racist as a group.
It would be very instructive to compare statistically citizen-police shootings in African-American communities; poor white communities in Appalachia; poor communities on Native American reservations, and the like, with shootings in middle-class areas. I don't think we have the statistics to do this and the NRA keeps us from studying the issue as a public health matter. How do the statistics look in police departments where the racial composition of the force more closely mirrors the composition of the community? Better results, the same results?
I don't want to minimize the effect of white-on-black racism, but I think the problem is multi-faceted. Racism, economics, way too many firearms, poor mental health treatment, and undoubtedly other matters contribute.
James D. Moyer
July 12, 2016
I have been reading some of your excellent commentary. I suggest a few slightly different thoughts.
We should not operate on an analysis that the problems of policing, deadly force, and over-enforcement in minority communities are attributable to a single factor. Most complicated situations have multiple causes. Attribution of everything to systemic racism lets us off the hook of looking hard at the complexity. Certainly we have a huge hangover from slavery in our nation (I live half the year in a border state and the rest of the year in northern Appalachia and it's impossible to miss).
But other factors must be considered. At the top of the list might be our national obsession with firearms and the fact that we have flooded our communities with military grade hardware. Any police officer must be legitimately wary of contacts with people who may be carrying concealed weapons.
Another factor is our poor level of mental health services. Sandy Hook and Gabby Giffords and the Aurora theater come quickly to mind.
Another factor is our willful blindness about data and the lack of careful analysis with respect to the deaths of citizens by police shootings. The recent study by an African-American professor at Harvard suggests various complexities -- he concludes that there are disparities in law enforcement contacts, but not in fatal shootings. See also yesterday's article refuting Rudy Giuliani in the Washington Post. We don't keep the data and so we ... assume, based on our cultural stereotypes. One cultural stereotype is that cops are racist as a group.
It would be very instructive to compare statistically citizen-police shootings in African-American communities; poor white communities in Appalachia; poor communities on Native American reservations, and the like, with shootings in middle-class areas. I don't think we have the statistics to do this and the NRA keeps us from studying the issue as a public health matter. How do the statistics look in police departments where the racial composition of the force more closely mirrors the composition of the community? Better results, the same results?
I don't want to minimize the effect of white-on-black racism, but I think the problem is multi-faceted. Racism, economics, way too many firearms, poor mental health treatment, and undoubtedly other matters contribute.
James D. Moyer
July 12, 2016
The Sad Truth
This was originally going to be a review-cum-op-ed about The Free State of Jones and “The Case for Reparations” by Ta-Nehisi Coates (The Atlantic, June 2014) but the shootings in Baton Rouge and Minnesota have changed that. With all this occurring at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency and during the ascendancy of Donald Trump’s white supremacy fueled campaign, it is difficult not to see RACE as the most important issue confronting the American people in 2016.
Yes, terrorists are out there (but please notice that the issue has been twisted into an anti-immigration and anti-Muslim cause célèbre --- both strong white supremacy platform planks); and, yes, the Brexit vote will have economic repercussions (again, an anti-immigration issue at the core); and, of course, Hillary Clinton’s e-mails are getting a lot of attention (because she might successfully succeed the black guy!) but it is time (long past time) that the United States face up to 397 years of systemic oppression. That we are now seeing daily murders of black men should make it clear to white America that it is not safe to be black in the U.S.A. --- and it never has been!
My problem with The Free State of Jones is that it soft pedals the brutality of slavery (rape is alluded to, lynching is given short shrift, with more whites than blacks lynched in the film) and the institutionalization of the Jim Crow South while still selling a “white savior” story. It is not a bad movie but it promotes the prevailing mythology that there are white people (like Newton Knight, whom we --- white folks --- are encouraged to identify with) who see that racism is bad and try to do something about it. If we look at history (and the flash forwards in Jones to the trial of Knight’s grandson on a Mississippi miscegenation law affirms this) America has persisted in creating what the Kerner Commission in 1968 warned against: “Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black and one white – separate and unequal.” (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6545/) That the power and wealth of this society is concentrated among white people (as it has been since 1619) and that those same people control law enforcement agencies cannot be denied.
I am not claiming there is a conspiracy by whites against blacks. It is, actually, far worse. The deep and ingrained racism of the United States, the overriding belief in white supremacy and privilege (in full flower with the Trump campaign and in the blatant disrespect accorded the Obama administration), cannot be denied. The American Dream is only available to those who do not have to worry that their children are not safe, 24/7, and who have to give their sons “the talk” about complying with the police. And what do Minnesota and Baton Rouge show us, once again? Compliance be damned! Many white people want to believe we are in some post-racial world the election of Obama ushered in and that we have “arrived” at a post-Civil Rights nirvana. BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!
The recommendations of the Kerner Report of 1968, tellingly, were ignored. They called for providing more job opportunities for Blacks (referred to as “Negroes” in the dated parlance of the time), a change in housing patterns (which, of course, had been facilitated by the Federal government’s redlining practices in collusion with banks) and, in its most telling note:
The police are not merely a “spark” factor. To some Negroes police have come to symbolize white power, white racism and white repression. And the fact is that many police do reflect and express these white attitudes. The atmosphere of hostility and cynicism is reinforced by a widespread belief among Negroes in the existence of police brutality and in a “double standard” of justice and protection—one for Negroes and one for whites. (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6545/)
That was written in 1968! It could easily describe what we have witnessed since the Michael Brown execution in 2014. We all know some of the names --- Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Freddy Gray, Eric Garner, Walter Scott --- but it’s not even close to a complete list (see https://www.buzzfeed.com/nicholasquah/heres-a-timeline-of-unarmed-black-men-killed-by-police-over?utm_term=.sb4Aol9RK#.ugx0m1WAB). And that’s only in the past few years. Let’s multiply the number (conservatively) by multiplying it by the 397 years that blacks have been brutalized by this society.
As we watch the nation divide before our eyes, with Donald Trump dog-whistling white supremacists and anti-Semites at every turn, with a Congress that has become more and more obstructionist rather than give an inch to a black President (something media outlets have ignored for 8 years), and with police continually exonerated in these killings, I can better understand why black America rejoiced in the 1995 O.J. Simpson “not guilty” verdict (ironically all over television this spring, 20 plus years later). That may seem an incongruous analogy but think about it: since the Simpson case, despite a black man’s election to the highest office in the land, all economic and social indicators reflect how much worse things have gotten for blacks (and brown people) in America.
Here are the simple statistics. While white people make up 63.2% of the 2010 census, only 10% (19.7 million) live in poverty. Blacks are 12.2% of the population but make up 26% (10 million) of those in poverty. Latino/Hispanics are 16.3% of the population and 24% of those are in poverty (13.3 million). So, 29% of the population accounts for 50% of Americans living in poverty. The classic myth is that somehow these people aren’t “capable” of achieving enough to “lift themselves up.” These recent shootings only cast in high relief how we live in a system that does not value people who are not white. Their lives are expendable (just as they were in the Middle Passage or working the fields, making white people rich). Watch the Vice television program “Black Market,” hosted by Michael K. Williams, focusing on “underground economies” that blacks (in America and South Africa) must participate in just to provide food for families and hear how opportunity has been systematically denied people of color in apartheid societies like the U.S. A. and South Africa.
I doubt much will come of all this. That Trump might win the 2016 election only reflects just how far gone our society is. While many would find the comparison onerous, we are the South Africa of the 21st century and our charade of electing a black man does not change the substance of our racist core. “Good” white people will not act in ways that genuinely change the equation. This country has spent almost 400 years stacking the deck and there is no way white people want a new hand dealt.
As the dealer says: “Read’m and weep.”
July 7, 2016
Comments: johnsoneducation71@gmail.com
2016's "Class President" Election
May 9, 2016
Stepping back and examining Donald Trump’s campaign I am more and more convinced that he is running for class president and hopes to be anointed Prom King, too. If you examine how Trump has run --- and many have called him a “schoolyard bully” --- it is very akin to a high school student’s campaign. He promises to “win” for all of us, like we’ve never “won” before --- without any mention of what, exactly, we will be winning. Maybe better school lunches? He is also fond of mentioning how smart he is --- ah, yes, that always impresses the underclassmen. And, of course, he is rich. Donald Trump would have us believe he is not a BMOC but the BMOC that we should all vote for because everyone else is stupid, ugly, corrupt, and so on.
Is it shocking, then, that the bulk of Trump supporters are non-college educated, white men? Geographically, Trump is strong in the South, parts of the Rust Belt, and anywhere else there is a lack of diversity and high ratings for Fox News and Alex Jones --- the equivalent of a Boomer high school’s auto shop and smoking area (I know, my “elitist” Ivy-educated bias is glaring here). He is the supremely confident “golden boy” (as he sees it) who believes his own bullshit and will repeat his lies until others believe him, too. Sycophants, (like a real high school Class President) Chris Christie, become surrogates, convincing others to jump on the bandwagon (or get their bridge to school shut down). As I reflect on my own high school career (and I’m a bit younger than Trump), nobody who was particularly “smart” or “cool” even considered running for Class or Student Council President. If we look at the original 17 Republican candidates we see that high school microcosm writ large.
And then, of course, Trump’s narrative is that he’s running against the homely, nerdy girl that nobody really likes. She’ll do anything to stay with her boyfriend, like attacking all those girls who say her boyfriend isn’t nice (in other words, “She’s a bitch”). Unfortunately, Hillary does fit a certain caricature of the “unpopular but smart” girl. She also suffers from 25 years in the political spotlight vs. Trump’s 186 episodes as a “reality show” entertainer. From Trump’s perspective, Hillary (“crooked Hillary”) is an easy target and someone who shouldn’t even be allowed to run. Even though that smart nerdy girl attended all those Model U.N’s and Model Congresses and went to Girls’ State and was on the Dean’s List every semester, why would anyone consider voting for her?
So, we have a High School Election on our hands with Richie Rich running against Lisa Simpson. While I want to take the election of the President of the United States seriously, it is difficult not to see it in cartoon terms. Thank you, Mr. Trump and the 24/7 news cycle. Thomas Jefferson had a strong belief that the “common man” would be the backbone of American democracy and make the body politic vibrant and strong. His vision, I believe, was that those “common” people would create a body politic that resembled Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was Mr. Universe. The problem is that our body politic far more resembles The Honeymooners Ralph Kramden making them vulnerable to the appeals of a Donald Trump (Ralph was always impressed by wretched excess). And the 24/7 media maw demands “content” whether it has substance or not. We may be in that “Perfect Storm” of factors that actually elects a Donald Trump, reminding me of a true story from my old high school. One of the classes several years behind mine saw the class president election as such a joke --- so meaningless to the class and the school --- that they wrote in, and elected, a student who was barely passing any classes and was so glaringly incompetent that the school administration stepped in and declared the election null and void. Extremely undemocratic, for sure, and not an option the American people will have in January of 2017, should a Donald Trump get elected.
There are those who will say, “So, what? We’ve had terrible Presidents before and we survived.” In an age of globalization and nuclear weapons this may no longer be an adage that holds up. Electing the incompetent student who clearly has no grasp of global economics, diplomacy, domestic policy, or climate science could be a catastrophe of enduring proportions for not just the United States but the entire world. Trump seems to picture the presidency as some kind of glorified “Fonzie” role where he will only have to snap his fingers to get what he wants. That wasn’t ever true, even for the Class President, and it’s a view that would not, by any means, ring in “Happy Days.”
Responses/reactions? Write to johnsoneducation71@gmail.com
Stepping back and examining Donald Trump’s campaign I am more and more convinced that he is running for class president and hopes to be anointed Prom King, too. If you examine how Trump has run --- and many have called him a “schoolyard bully” --- it is very akin to a high school student’s campaign. He promises to “win” for all of us, like we’ve never “won” before --- without any mention of what, exactly, we will be winning. Maybe better school lunches? He is also fond of mentioning how smart he is --- ah, yes, that always impresses the underclassmen. And, of course, he is rich. Donald Trump would have us believe he is not a BMOC but the BMOC that we should all vote for because everyone else is stupid, ugly, corrupt, and so on.
Is it shocking, then, that the bulk of Trump supporters are non-college educated, white men? Geographically, Trump is strong in the South, parts of the Rust Belt, and anywhere else there is a lack of diversity and high ratings for Fox News and Alex Jones --- the equivalent of a Boomer high school’s auto shop and smoking area (I know, my “elitist” Ivy-educated bias is glaring here). He is the supremely confident “golden boy” (as he sees it) who believes his own bullshit and will repeat his lies until others believe him, too. Sycophants, (like a real high school Class President) Chris Christie, become surrogates, convincing others to jump on the bandwagon (or get their bridge to school shut down). As I reflect on my own high school career (and I’m a bit younger than Trump), nobody who was particularly “smart” or “cool” even considered running for Class or Student Council President. If we look at the original 17 Republican candidates we see that high school microcosm writ large.
And then, of course, Trump’s narrative is that he’s running against the homely, nerdy girl that nobody really likes. She’ll do anything to stay with her boyfriend, like attacking all those girls who say her boyfriend isn’t nice (in other words, “She’s a bitch”). Unfortunately, Hillary does fit a certain caricature of the “unpopular but smart” girl. She also suffers from 25 years in the political spotlight vs. Trump’s 186 episodes as a “reality show” entertainer. From Trump’s perspective, Hillary (“crooked Hillary”) is an easy target and someone who shouldn’t even be allowed to run. Even though that smart nerdy girl attended all those Model U.N’s and Model Congresses and went to Girls’ State and was on the Dean’s List every semester, why would anyone consider voting for her?
So, we have a High School Election on our hands with Richie Rich running against Lisa Simpson. While I want to take the election of the President of the United States seriously, it is difficult not to see it in cartoon terms. Thank you, Mr. Trump and the 24/7 news cycle. Thomas Jefferson had a strong belief that the “common man” would be the backbone of American democracy and make the body politic vibrant and strong. His vision, I believe, was that those “common” people would create a body politic that resembled Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was Mr. Universe. The problem is that our body politic far more resembles The Honeymooners Ralph Kramden making them vulnerable to the appeals of a Donald Trump (Ralph was always impressed by wretched excess). And the 24/7 media maw demands “content” whether it has substance or not. We may be in that “Perfect Storm” of factors that actually elects a Donald Trump, reminding me of a true story from my old high school. One of the classes several years behind mine saw the class president election as such a joke --- so meaningless to the class and the school --- that they wrote in, and elected, a student who was barely passing any classes and was so glaringly incompetent that the school administration stepped in and declared the election null and void. Extremely undemocratic, for sure, and not an option the American people will have in January of 2017, should a Donald Trump get elected.
There are those who will say, “So, what? We’ve had terrible Presidents before and we survived.” In an age of globalization and nuclear weapons this may no longer be an adage that holds up. Electing the incompetent student who clearly has no grasp of global economics, diplomacy, domestic policy, or climate science could be a catastrophe of enduring proportions for not just the United States but the entire world. Trump seems to picture the presidency as some kind of glorified “Fonzie” role where he will only have to snap his fingers to get what he wants. That wasn’t ever true, even for the Class President, and it’s a view that would not, by any means, ring in “Happy Days.”
Responses/reactions? Write to johnsoneducation71@gmail.com
Bernie Sanders: Disingenuous Absolutist
April 4, 2016
Enough already with the Bernie Sanders love fest that the media, young voters and Susan Sarandon can’t get too much of. Recognizing that I will be labeled an old crank, a voice for the “Democratic establishment” (despite being a registered Independent), and another one of those Clinton baby-boomers, I believe it is time to put Emperor Sanders fully on display, sans clothes.
While the estimable Susan Sarandon (personal worth: $50 Million) hopes that Bernie’s or Trump’s election will bring a “political revolution,” let’s be grown-ups when we assess the political landscape. Republicans control the House and Senate and Democrats can only hope that somehow Trump’s candidacy will bring enough of their party into the Senate to regain the majority there. Even with that, there is no looming “revolution.” Not that such a thing would be necessarily bad, but let’s talk about how does one govern this beast of a system effectively, given the realities. “Political revolution” is not in the cards and, even though I know young people will not like to hear this, the ‘60’s (when we grew up) was far closer to some kind of genuine revolution than today’s Tea Party-Trump world (even white college students got shot!). The “Establishment’s” ability to quash civil rights, the Black Panthers, the anti-war movement, and make women’s and gay rights a 40-year battle is testimony to the blunt power of those in charge. Bernie calls for a “political revolution” without really explaining how that is going to happen beyond his quixotic calls for some grassroots takeover. It is wonderful to sloganeer but is he really providing any more substance than Trump’s delusional proposals?
Bernie’s one note samba attack on Clinton’s taking money from Wall Street is also disingenuous. As much as I love the European socialist model Bernie espouses, how, exactly will that happen in the United States? You have Republicans winning office because they’ve convinced voters that Medicare and Social Security are needless entitlements! While Clinton’s connection to Wall Street may be unseemly, it is what politicians do. Can Sanders make any clear connection between Clinton’s Wall Street speaking fees and actual favors she has given those capitalists? And just what will replace the massive capitalist machinery Bernie hopes to displace? Like his “free college” (backtracked on) there are practical realities that will require compromise with capitalists.
Finally, why is it we have only come to know Bernie Sanders since 2015? My awareness of him, prior to this election, was like many others: “Oh, yeah, that cranky old socialist guy from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats.” While we all know of bills like Dodd-Frank and McCain-Feingold, why are we not aware of any Sanders- (House member’s name here) or (Senator’s name here)-Sanders bills in his 30 years in the Congress? Of course, he did vote against the Iraq War, and castigates Clinton for her vote incessantly, but why didn't he begin his “revolution” then and there, with a genuine issue at the forefront? Why didn’t that become a rallying point for his 2004 or 2008 bid for the Democratic nomination? He suddenly woke up some time in 2015 and decided the United States is ready for Bernie Sanders? Looking at the evidence, the United States is as ready for Bernie Sanders as it is for Donald Trump. The pundits point out that their supporters exhibit the same “anger” with the Establishment and its “business as usual.” Why, then, as a member of that Establishment, hasn’t Bernie been upsetting the apple cart for the past 30 years? Why is he so late to this party? He is more Rip Van Sanders than Robin Hood and voters, young and old, need to see idealistic rhetoric for what it is: lovely in intent but grossly impractical in reality.
Enough already with the Bernie Sanders love fest that the media, young voters and Susan Sarandon can’t get too much of. Recognizing that I will be labeled an old crank, a voice for the “Democratic establishment” (despite being a registered Independent), and another one of those Clinton baby-boomers, I believe it is time to put Emperor Sanders fully on display, sans clothes.
While the estimable Susan Sarandon (personal worth: $50 Million) hopes that Bernie’s or Trump’s election will bring a “political revolution,” let’s be grown-ups when we assess the political landscape. Republicans control the House and Senate and Democrats can only hope that somehow Trump’s candidacy will bring enough of their party into the Senate to regain the majority there. Even with that, there is no looming “revolution.” Not that such a thing would be necessarily bad, but let’s talk about how does one govern this beast of a system effectively, given the realities. “Political revolution” is not in the cards and, even though I know young people will not like to hear this, the ‘60’s (when we grew up) was far closer to some kind of genuine revolution than today’s Tea Party-Trump world (even white college students got shot!). The “Establishment’s” ability to quash civil rights, the Black Panthers, the anti-war movement, and make women’s and gay rights a 40-year battle is testimony to the blunt power of those in charge. Bernie calls for a “political revolution” without really explaining how that is going to happen beyond his quixotic calls for some grassroots takeover. It is wonderful to sloganeer but is he really providing any more substance than Trump’s delusional proposals?
Bernie’s one note samba attack on Clinton’s taking money from Wall Street is also disingenuous. As much as I love the European socialist model Bernie espouses, how, exactly will that happen in the United States? You have Republicans winning office because they’ve convinced voters that Medicare and Social Security are needless entitlements! While Clinton’s connection to Wall Street may be unseemly, it is what politicians do. Can Sanders make any clear connection between Clinton’s Wall Street speaking fees and actual favors she has given those capitalists? And just what will replace the massive capitalist machinery Bernie hopes to displace? Like his “free college” (backtracked on) there are practical realities that will require compromise with capitalists.
Finally, why is it we have only come to know Bernie Sanders since 2015? My awareness of him, prior to this election, was like many others: “Oh, yeah, that cranky old socialist guy from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats.” While we all know of bills like Dodd-Frank and McCain-Feingold, why are we not aware of any Sanders- (House member’s name here) or (Senator’s name here)-Sanders bills in his 30 years in the Congress? Of course, he did vote against the Iraq War, and castigates Clinton for her vote incessantly, but why didn't he begin his “revolution” then and there, with a genuine issue at the forefront? Why didn’t that become a rallying point for his 2004 or 2008 bid for the Democratic nomination? He suddenly woke up some time in 2015 and decided the United States is ready for Bernie Sanders? Looking at the evidence, the United States is as ready for Bernie Sanders as it is for Donald Trump. The pundits point out that their supporters exhibit the same “anger” with the Establishment and its “business as usual.” Why, then, as a member of that Establishment, hasn’t Bernie been upsetting the apple cart for the past 30 years? Why is he so late to this party? He is more Rip Van Sanders than Robin Hood and voters, young and old, need to see idealistic rhetoric for what it is: lovely in intent but grossly impractical in reality.
A Note on Justice Scalia
May 1, 2016
A Note on Justice Scalia’s Passing
So, Antonin Scalia is dead (February 16, 2016). Can we please stop with the bullshit that he was a "brilliant" legal mind and a "great' Supreme Court Justice?
Scalia was a regressive Neanderthal, a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic traditionalist who believed in a "dead constitution (his words)." Only amending the Constitution state by state should be the way to change the "law of the land." Hmmm: then schools might not be integrated throughout the country, women would still be getting back-alley abortions, and laws schools might not consider courses that have to do with contemporary society
When a law student at the University of Wyoming asked Scalia what classes she should take, he said she should skip the "frill classes" like Women in Justice. "Take the bread and butter courses. Do not take 'law and women,' do not take 'law and poverty,' do not take 'law and anything,'" he said, adding that many professors like to "teach their hobbies.".
Antonin Scalia was a petty, small minded boy from Queens who squandered his intellect in trying to preserve a patriarchal, misogynistic, racist society and should not be lionized simply because he was willing to be a publicly narcissistic, outspoken asshole (who wouldn't recuse himself from a case about his buddy, Dick Cheney, even though he had just been on a hunting trip with the crazed veep!).
But, what do I know. Too soon?
So, Antonin Scalia is dead (February 16, 2016). Can we please stop with the bullshit that he was a "brilliant" legal mind and a "great' Supreme Court Justice?
Scalia was a regressive Neanderthal, a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic traditionalist who believed in a "dead constitution (his words)." Only amending the Constitution state by state should be the way to change the "law of the land." Hmmm: then schools might not be integrated throughout the country, women would still be getting back-alley abortions, and laws schools might not consider courses that have to do with contemporary society
When a law student at the University of Wyoming asked Scalia what classes she should take, he said she should skip the "frill classes" like Women in Justice. "Take the bread and butter courses. Do not take 'law and women,' do not take 'law and poverty,' do not take 'law and anything,'" he said, adding that many professors like to "teach their hobbies.".
Antonin Scalia was a petty, small minded boy from Queens who squandered his intellect in trying to preserve a patriarchal, misogynistic, racist society and should not be lionized simply because he was willing to be a publicly narcissistic, outspoken asshole (who wouldn't recuse himself from a case about his buddy, Dick Cheney, even though he had just been on a hunting trip with the crazed veep!).
But, what do I know. Too soon?