• Home
  • The Blast -Blog
  • The Blast (Archive)
  • Blast Directory (Archive)
  • California Streamin'
  • Politics
  • Culture
  • ART
  • SONGS
  • Reviews
  • Op-Ed Material
  • New Writing
  • Old Writing
  • ARCHIVES
  • "If you went to Yale . . ."
  • Outing the Privilege Gap
  • Thoughts on TFA
  • Sir Ken Robinson: Education & Creativity
  • My 91 seconds of Rock-music-video Fame!
  • Creating Democratic Schools
  • Acknowledgments
  • About the Author
  • Contact Info

Politics

Surveying the minefield
​(Please scroll through)

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
 


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
 
 

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
 


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.
 



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?


“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”:
Time for a New American Political Order

 March 5, 2016
For a country that supposedly loves “out of the box thinking” (at least if we are to believe what advertisers tell us) it is hard to understand why we can’t, finally, break from our old two-party system allegiance and move into an “out of the box” 20th century (European-like) concept and accept that we now have a multi-party system.  Unlike Europe, we do not have a vibrant left-right spectrum of parties but we now have a four party system we are trying to cram into our old two-party paradigm.
Trump and Sanders have unleashed Populist Parties on the Right and Left and they are vocal and vigorous media darlings.  The parties are quite different, at their core, but their origin comes from widespread disenchantment with the
“mainstream establishment.”  Trump’s Populists are the angry, politically incorrect, predominantly white men who wish the South had won the Civil War, who want to be able to use the “n” word without repercussions, who hope to keep immigrants and Muslims out of their America and who find Trump’s vulgarity, banality, and lack of clarity right up their alley.  “Make America White Again” (as Nicholas Kristof asserted in the NY Times) could well be the catch phrase of the Populist Right party (aka “Trumpeters?”) who want that strong leader who quotes Mussolini and threatens torture while expounding the greatness of his own manhood.
On the Left, we have the Sanders Populists: predominantly young, already feeling the burden of their college debt,  also decrying the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness of the Mainstream Establishment.  They are, as we would hope young people to be, energetically enthusiastic and idealistic --- not unlike the Obama ’08 tide that carried the first African-American into the White House.  In “feeling the Bern” they do not seem to care about the lack of depth their candidate exhibits in foreign policy or the sheer impracticability of his proposed “revolution”---or even that a President, alone, cannot forge revolutionary changes like free college or health care for all.  Nonetheless, they are numerous and would constitute, like the Trump supporters, a core for a legitimate four-party field if we could at see that Populism, Left and Right, are strong threads in our current electorate.
The United States has flirted with this before, of course.  In the late 19th century the Populist Party tried to meld the interests of farmers and wageworkers into a viable political party challenging Robber Barons and the Gold Standard.  As the 20th century bloomed, the Progressive Party
of “Fightin’ Bob” LaFollette (commandeered by TR and his “Bull Moose” Party in the 1912 Presidential election) certainly had an impact on some serious reform legislation --- but those Progressives had to, ultimately, cleave to a “real” (read: Republican/Democratic) party to have any say whatsoever in American politics.
The United States electorate seems fixated on a binary party system with no room for outliers and dissenters.  Be co-opted or be silenced, is the message (as Mitt Romney announced this week).  Would it be so horrible to offer the U.S. electorate four (or, God forbid, more?) choices for their government?  How might Congress actually act if they had a Populist Left to counteract the Tea Party (Populist) Right that now operates (?) our government?  Are the European and Israeli coalition governments all that bad and don’t they, in fact, represent a far more democratic form of governing?
With our vast size and diversity --- not just ethnically and racially, but socially, economically, topographically, and geologically --- shouldn’t we be fostering a mulit-party system?  Why not let the lunatic KKK fringe become a political (not terrorist) party and run against a Black Caucus party as well as Latino and LGBT candidates.   Our identity politics could be a basis for political organizing but it may also be a way for people to begin to see shared interests, something the current mainstream establishment definitely does not want.  Maybe those groups would find they had a strong bond as workers and decide to create a Laboring Party.  Or maybe we would develop a First Amendment Party based on groups that feel they haven’t been heard.

Yes, I’ve gone off the rails here but the point is, getting beyond the binary box of U.S. Political Parties might do more good than harm --- as opposed to what the establishment is now warning us and a vulgarian like Trump makes us believe.  But there may well be a better, more interesting and truly diverse world of politics if we were allowed to experience a genuine Far Left to Far Right debate rather than the charades created to entertain and delude us into believing we live in a genuine democracy.
The weight that the system is feeling today from Trump and Sanders may not be “fringe” sensations at all but the tectonic shifts of genuine democracy crying to escape the crust that has ossified and stagnated across the nation  Use whatever analogy you choose --- earthquake, molting, metamorphosis --- the center is not holding but it does not have to be anarchy loosed upon the earth.  It could be the beginning of a new age of American Politics, if people would step back and consider the possibilities --- and then step up and organize.


Bernie Sanders:
A Jacksonian Democrat?
February 11, 2016
For those college aged, Bernie Sanders supporters his campaign, to them, is like sex --- that is, they think they discovered this passion, this idealism, this ecstasy!  In the Twittersphere, Facebook World, and Instagrammatical Universe, where history only began when you started college, there is no awareness of Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, or even Howard Dean.  Harsh words from Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem are seen as an affront --- what could those Grandmas know?  This is the world of #mylifemattersmost and it is one lacking historical, cultural, or political perspective.
Bernie’s idealistic platform is very appealing.  Who wouldn’t want free college education?  Who’s against universal, single-payer health care?  Who doesn’t want to break up Wall Street and the banking cabal?  Who isn’t against making the very wealthy pay more?
Who isn’t on board with Bernie’s platform?  Well, about half the country (if you check the “flyover” red states and all those who recoil at the term “socialist”) and a sizable majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives.   While his ideas are great, there is no track record of Senatorial leadership, important legislation introduced and passed, or even a sense that his Democratic “colleagues” are “all in” for Bernie (NO endorsements from Senate Democrats).  While Hillary has a “checkered past” a thoughtful, reflective electorate needs to question why we know so much about that and why Bernie is a rather opportunistic Idealist-Come-Lately.
Young people believe they know Hillary --- and why not?  She’s been front-page news/fodder since 1992 --- almost a quarter century.  She’s not a “new” face to them (or anyone) and her approach (practicality, get things done, etc.) is not particularly exciting or inspiring.  And, yes, there are issues --- largely because she has not only been in the public spotlight (doing some serious work as a Senator and, oh, yeah, Secretary of State) but, as with President Bill C., has been a target of conservative, right-wing attacks since Day One.  So, young people have been hearing about Hillary for so long (often through a negative media filter) that she really can’t be considered their candidate.  But Bernie, like Obama in 2008, is shiny and new and idealistic --- and a less probable reformer than Obama has proven to be.
Let’s talk for a minute about the possibilities of Bernie’s proposals.  Free college education for everyone.  His platform says that the taxes on corporations and the wealthy (another plank) will pay for this but here’s the two edged sword that will cut both those planks to ribbons.  #1.  How will a 52% tax on the wealthy and a tax on corporate profits in the Caymans happen?  Obama struggled to maintain the W. Bush era tax cuts because he tried to take away cuts for the wealthy (he didn’t succeed)!  From the college side (public or not), the University Lobby is so strong that the only impervious debt when you declare bankruptcy is your college loan!  While the loan may be put in limbo for a few years (“in abeyance”) it is NEVER forgiven and wiped away, as all other bankruptcy debts are.  So, the notion that the Congress and the University Lobby, under Bernie’s magic spell, will suddenly relent and we will begin our “political revolution” is, at best, questionable.
The whole “break up the banks” diatribe is fun to listen to.  No doubt the banks are excruciatingly greedy and were largely responsible for the collapse of the economy in 2007.  The banking industry needs serious oversight and regulation (though that is exceedingly difficult to get conservative/Republican politicians to agree to).  While I am no proponent of the banking industry (or the Federal Reserve, for that matter), I am wary of Bernie’s idea that, in one fell swoop, we “reform” the banking industry.   This is where knowledge of history intervenes and Bernie Sanders could be viewed as today’s foremost Jacksonian Democrat.  For those not familiar with United States history, here’s the quick and dirty summary (through a biased lens, of course, but you’re welcome to do the research and check the facts --- something we’re seeing little of in the 2016 political world).
In 1824 Andrew Jackson, the “hero of the Battle of New Orleans” (a slave owner, Indian-killer and self-made politician) ran for President against John Quincy Adams (son of U.S.President #2 & Secretary of State), Henry Clay (the powerful Speaker of the House), and William Crawford (Secretary of the Treasury).  Even though Jackson, the candidate representing the “common man” and the first “western,” non-college educated, non-Virginia/Massachusetts resident, won the Electoral Election, he did not receive a majority of the Electoral votes (because of the 4 way race).  The 12th Amendment sent the election to the House of Representatives where Adams was chosen and he promptly appointed Speaker of the House Henry Clay his Secretary of State (the stepping stone to the White House – Jefferson, Madison, Monroe & Adams himself had ALL been Secretary of State before becoming President).  Jackson screamed “corrupt bargain” and the stage was set for the 1828 election between Jackson (the Common Man’s representative) and Adams (the Northeastern Establishment, moneyed, special interest candidate).  Long story short, Jackson won and won again in 1832 and his major crusade, in the interest of the Common Man, was to destroy the National Bank (and its Director, Nicholas Biddle).  In 1834 Jackson vetoed the renewal of the Bank’s charter and three years later the United States was mired in its first Great Depression (from 1837 to about 1841 --- with poor Martin Van Buren, Jackson’s former Vice President and successor --- taking the heat for it --- not unlike Obama being scapegoated for W’s debacle).   The U.S. then experienced a “Boom/Bust” economy with a chaotic banking system until the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.  Over-speculation and overextension of credit still haunt our banking and the Federal Reserve has been no magic bullet, though it has provided some stability.  Bernie has offered little, in terms of policy, beyond “breaking up the largest financial institutions” and levying “huge” taxes on the wealthy, Wall Street, and big corporations.  Wonderfully idealistic proposals --- but how do they become actualized?  Since the ‘60’s we have only seen greater and greater income (and taxation) inequality.  Congress has the “power of the purse” and shows no will to make those changes.  Oh, right  --- Bernie Sanders has been a member of that Congress for the past 30 years!
Okay, that’s a 19th century historical example (and Bernie certainly isn’t the slave owning, Indian-killing war hero Jackson was) but an underlying fact is that big financial institutions and banks actually do perform some important and useful functions in a capitalist world.  Breaking them up will not necessarily bring an economic heaven-on-earth for working or middle class people.  Again, while the banking industry needs oversight and regulation, the slash and burn rhetoric of Bernie Sanders does not sound: a) possible, and b) practical.
Circling back to Millennials’ love of Bernie: it seems to be a classic Generation Gap (as it used to be called) Love Affair.  “If my parents like someone (Hillary) then I don’t!”  And here’s a guy who is pitching exactly the softballs I can believe in:  democratic socialism, woohoo!
One last note on the elections of 1824/1828:  in 1824 all the candidates ran as “Democratic-Republicans.”  In 1828, Jackson becomes a “Democrat” (Republicans didn’t appear until 1854) so maybe Bernie’s “democratic socialist” label is another apt comparison to Jackson (and maybe will create a new symbol --- the donkey was supposed to represent the “jackass,” Jackson).  But the predominant attitude bringing people into the Sanders and Trump camps is anger and disgust with “business as usual.”   In 1828 Jackson supported increasing “democracy” for non-landholding white men in the West and reforming the federal government (there is certainly a strong strand of Jacksonian white supremacy and demagogic executive power in the Trump campaign).  Unhappy voters and “increased” democracy seems to be the wave Bernie is hoping to ride to victory.  Citizens should study history and use the recent example of Obama vs. the Republican Legislature to make informed decisions about who the best candidates are in 2016. 

Wars We Can’t Win
December 30, 2015
Donald Trump is riding a wave of anger, we’re told, and his primary appeal is emotional (if you’ll excuse the pun).   One of Trump’s most effective lines, early on (not unlike Charlie Sheen), had to do with the fact that he, the Donald, is a “winner” and America is “losing” all over the world.   And this is where Trump World and Reality actually intersect.  Because politicians, and Presidents, in particular, have conditioned citizens of the United States to a) believe the United States always wins wars (despite Vietnam) so they need to, therefore, b) declare “wars” on problems that are troubling and troublesome.  Therefore, poverty, drugs, and terrorism all require a “war” against them.  The difficulty, however, is that these problems do not  have simple solutions, are not fought on battlefields, and will not have negotiated settlements or clear termination.
A criticism the Bush Administration heard again and again about the war in Iraq was that there was no “exit strategy.”   The same is true of the war in Afghanistan.  And, as we see those wars wind on and on we also see that the “wars” on poverty, drugs, and terrorism have no exit strategies.  In these cases, unlike a genuine territorial, battlefield war, there cannot  be a clearly defined, resolute “exit strategy.”
Lyndon Johnson actually did a fairly good job in his war on poverty, cutting it by almost 50% according to some statistics.  Since the late ‘60’s, however, the “war” on poverty has been a holding action at best, and the increasing gap between rich and poor along with the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few has certainly made LBJ’s war as much a lost cause as was his Vietnam adventurism.  At this point, few Americans would contend we are even involved in this “war” any longer.  We surrendered and lost.
The war on drugs, championed by the Reagans during America’s “crack decade” has seen, by 2015, a movement to legalize the once demonized marijuana and a steady increase in heroin abuse in particular --- even in American suburbs!  America’s appetite for drugs --- and the desire for cocaine and heroin by many financially “well off” citizens --- illustrates how badly we have fared in this war.  It is only front-page news when there is some spectacular, celebrity incident.  The days of Pablo Escobar are over and few care about El Chapo and the carnage in Mexico (which is feeding the insatiable U.S.A.’s desire for “product.”)  Once again, out of sight, out of mind --- surrender in silence.
The war against terrorism is a bit trickier, of course, because it is so present.   Paris, San Bernadino, and the ISIS phenomena --- these keep “terrorism” in the headlines.  It is interesting, of course, that Sandy Hook, or Planned Parenthood, or movie theater and campus mass shootings are somehow not terrorism.  No, terrorism, it seems, requires that the perpetrator be an “other,” and, of course, Muslim.  So, Tsarnaev’s and Farook and Malik are terrorists, while  Lanza, Holmes, Mercer, or Dear are simply “psychos.”    So, even though the San Bernadino killing of 14 is considered “the worst terrorist attack since 9/11” the 27 dead at Sandy Hook were victims of random violence.
But I digress.  Our “war” on terrorism is not a real war, just as our wars on poverty and drugs weren’t.  We will not wipe out poverty, or drug abuse, or terrorism because there is no simple or clear way to do it.  Just as the wars against poverty and drugs have been essentially abandoned, if ISIS falls, our concern with “terrorism” will also wane and future mass killings (and we will have them, of course) will once again become the provenance of “psychos” and “loners” who perpetrate the carnage.  People like Donald Trump, inherent nativist racists, will continue to claim it is Muslims, or Mexicans, or any “other” that is destroying their bright, white America but this “war” on terrorism is as hollow as the wars on poverty and drugs.  There is no exit strategy because there is no exit possible.  These are pure and simple facts of life in America, 2016.  How can we reduce, mitigate, contain, control these problems?  That’s the question we might truly ask, not looking for empirical solutions but practical and sensible remedies.


Is Obama a Progressive?
​April 14, 2014
In United States History Progressive Presidents have led reform movements to help the poor and the working class.  If not for Theodore Roosevelt’s passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act and Meat Inspection Act average Americans would be eating tainted food.  Franklin Roosevelt’s introduction of Social Security insured that older Americans would not be devastated by an event like the Great Depression and be left without support in their old age.  Lyndon Johnson’s creation of HeadStart guaranteed that poor children would receive free pre-K education.  These are classic examples of Progressivism, led by strong Presidents.  The question at hand is this:  is the Obama Presidency Progressive?
Based on the record from 2009 to the present, there is little evidence to support the idea that the Obama Presidency has been a Progressive one.  Many of his “accomplishments” have particularly helped the upper classes and done little to support the working class or the poor.  His legislation which bailed out both the banks --- who had sent the economy into a tailspin with their questionable mortgage and loan practices --- and the auto industry --- who seemed to be waiting for Federal help ---- certainly benefitted few “average” Americans.  The Wall Street crowd and the Board rooms at the Big Three auto manufacturers certainly seemed to support their sudden good fortune.  Even the “Race to the top” education program more closely resembles the Bush “No Child Left Behind” than any kind of genuine school reform.  Indeed, corporations producing tests for the Common Core State Standards, and the Foundations like Helmsley and Gates are passing money around to corporate test-makers and book publishers.  It is doubtful FDR or LBJ would have supported measures like these.  FDR’s support of the striking auto workers stands in stark contrast to Obama’s bail out for Big Auto.   LBJ’s financial aid to education and HeadStart programs make Obama’s measures look extremely weak.  Progressive?  Not likely.
What about the Affordable Care Act?  This might be promoted as a truly “progressive” measure but the fact that Obama took the Single Payer option off the table --- which would have been a true boon to the average American --- to compromise with the Republicans shows how far from true Progressivism this administration is.  In the same way, it might be argued that Obama’s “Stimulus Package” --- designed to create jobs and improve the economy --- is clearly a Progressive idea – not unlike FDR’s CCC or PWA or WPA.  However, looking at the statistics, only the wealthiest 20% have increased their earnings while the lowest 80% have continued to slide lower on the income scale over the past 5 years.  At best, Obama is a “window-dressing” Progressive, who looks good in the show room but fails to perform when he’s out on the road.
Barack Obama talks the talk of the Progressive but fails to walk the walk.  “Obamacare” cannot bear comparison to Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare/Medicaid revolutionary legislation.  Nor can the “Stimulus” hold a candle to FDR’s “alphabet soup agencies” or the long-term reforms like the Tennessee Valley Authority, Social Security, or the Agricultural Adjustment Act.   Obama’s concessions to the “Too Big to Fail” Wall Street firms would surely make Teddy Roosevelt roll over in his grave, seeing Corporate Barons once again controlling the fortunes of the “little guy.”  The Square Deal, The New Deal, The Great Society --- all names for Progressive Administrations.  What, then, is the name for these Obama years?  Too little for the little guy.



 

 

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
  • The Blast -Blog
  • The Blast (Archive)
  • Blast Directory (Archive)
  • California Streamin'
  • Politics
  • Culture
  • ART
  • SONGS
  • Reviews
  • Op-Ed Material
  • New Writing
  • Old Writing
  • ARCHIVES
  • "If you went to Yale . . ."
  • Outing the Privilege Gap
  • Thoughts on TFA
  • Sir Ken Robinson: Education & Creativity
  • My 91 seconds of Rock-music-video Fame!
  • Creating Democratic Schools
  • Acknowledgments
  • About the Author
  • Contact Info