Saturday, January 23, 2010
Friday, June 26, 2009
Michael Jackson 1958-2009
I remember being more than a little outraged when, in 1994, a very tense and touchy nuclear situation involving North Korea was replaced as the top story by the death of Nicole Simpson. Her death was tragic and certainly due the appropriate mourning and prayers that it got, and perhaps then some because it was such a brutal death and no one should die like she and Ronald Goldman died that night. But the country was on the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a crazy strongman, and CNN was devoting its time to a Ford Bronco moving slowly down an LA freeway. It was surreal and a lot of people made careers, received fame, inked cable television deals, and still haunt cable stations devoted to these kinds of things in an industry that did not even exist before Nicole Simpson's death. Its Los Angeles, everybody has their hand out for their big payday and everyone is just a little weird.
So why am I writing about Michael Jackson? For two reasons. First, I want to document the Los Angeles virus of ready made and shameless fame fanned on by a television news industry that seems perpetually perched in a helicopter in Los Angeles following vans and ambulances while anchors search for something to say like Cronkite used to during space flights, the latter a much more honorable example of bsing that what we see every so often when something happens in L.A.
The new shameless stars from this moment are: Vogue writer Maureen Orth who proclaimed Jackson guilty of drug addiction and child molestation with the certainty of a seer, who was given broad room on Morning Joe on MSNBC by Willie Geist, but short shrift across the hall on Today on NBC by Matt Lauer; former Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, who declared Michael Jackson another Anna Nicole Smith with the studied media stare of a man starved for the media attention that he was now assured of getting. Who knows, this may lead to a cable show!
Los Angeles. This is why I travel east.
The second reason I write about Michael Jackson, knowing full well all of the other things in the news, is that, well, Michael Jackson was special. Not to put his life above Simpson's, but one might consider devoting time to MJ because his death really is about more than just the salaciousness that Orth and Oxman would like to mine from this. It was about, well, among other things, my teenaged years.
Its 1969 and I am a high school freshman heading to the band room after a Friday night football game in Beaumont, Texas. I am a band member and football player, but as a freshman, I am not on varsity, so I got to march and play in the stands with the band. As I walked to the room from the bus, a cute junior twirler whom I had been pining over for weeks, walked up to me and placed a kiss on my cheek. It was dark enough that not everybody saw us, but enough did to totally embarass me as I did not know what to do, I am 14 remember, so I walked on not understanding what I was feeling. Someone walks past my flustered and nervous self with a transister radio that was playing "I Want You Back". She became my "I Want You Back" crush. Forty years later that moment is still part of my youthful memories (by the way later in the fall I offered the twirler an umbrella at a rain game and we stood there with my arm stretched over her shoulder with me still not knowing what to do).
I also remember 1970 when the Osmonds broke out with their imitation of the Jackson 5's hits, and their subsequent shadowing of the Jacksons in everything they did. Jacksons got a cartoon show, Osmonds got a cartoon show. Fights broke out in high schools and junior high schools across the country between white and black kids over who was coolest, the Jacksons or the Osmonds, the controversy every bit as hot as J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO surveillance of the Black Panthers that same year. I went to an all black high school so no fights broke out, over that issue.
As time continued, I started lying about my relations, as every black kid named Jackson must have during that time. I had distant relatives in Indiana, and, well you get the picture.
There was much innocence in these memories, the kind of innocence that is not much attributed to black youth of my generation. Depictions of my group are usually surrounded by civil rights strife (The Learning Tree), or inner city angst (Cooley High, J.T.). Sometimes all we experienced during that time was an occasional hopeless crush on a girl in short blue and gold tights carrying a baton. And the sound track of that period ranged from "I Want You Back" "ABC" "The Love You Save", "I'll Be There", the latter being the number one "phone sing" song that girls, at least in Southeast Texas, asked you to sing for them while on the phone avoiding chemistry homework, which resulted in a C and threats of sanctions from my father. Literally, there was no other music. Except for James Brown, of course.
Others in their mid to late 40s will focus their memories on the CBS label Jacksons which was a five member group of equally sized brothers, minus Jermaine with Randy added to keep the group as a quintet. Those in their early forties and late 30s will remember Michael Jackson, the one man act and Thriller, and Bad as sign post of their teens. But for a 54 year old, the memories focus on the Motown quintet of uneven sized teenagers with high voices. By the time the other iterations of the Jackson phenomon came about, I was listening to jazz, Stevie Wonder, Earth Wind and Fire, and War. As far as I was concerned, at 20 the Jackson 5, or the Jacksons, or whatever they were calling themselves then, were kid stuff.
But they were part of my youth.
Many of the well meaning pundits want to create a Michael Jackson that brought whites and blacks together in the same music like no other artist before him. This is not true. Duke Ellington holds that distinction--white bobby soxers in the 40s bopped to Ellington (and Count Basie for that matter) as much as their kids and grand kids danced to MJ. Music was not nearly as Balkanized as the social commentators, including Michael Eric Dyson (who should know better) claim to remember. Stevie Wonder was a staple on top 40 radio, and does anybody remember a guy named Jimi Hendrix? We need not embellish MJ to make his contributions important. He was just, literally the greatest pop entertainer in Western history (there probably is a superstar in Asia somewhere whose numbers at concerts or someother category of entertainment dwarf MJs because there are more people over there).
We need to learn to appreciate MJ without the embellishments.
Brace yourself, the embellishments aside, there will be, after the initial shock is over, a race to the bottom to remind us all of his dark side. Like Tom Joyner noted, he was like the relative that you were always concerned about. Much of what is hinted at about MJ's life is indeed troubling, but we have been living and wringing our hands over that stuff for years now.
Let the guy rest in peace.
So why am I writing about Michael Jackson? For two reasons. First, I want to document the Los Angeles virus of ready made and shameless fame fanned on by a television news industry that seems perpetually perched in a helicopter in Los Angeles following vans and ambulances while anchors search for something to say like Cronkite used to during space flights, the latter a much more honorable example of bsing that what we see every so often when something happens in L.A.
The new shameless stars from this moment are: Vogue writer Maureen Orth who proclaimed Jackson guilty of drug addiction and child molestation with the certainty of a seer, who was given broad room on Morning Joe on MSNBC by Willie Geist, but short shrift across the hall on Today on NBC by Matt Lauer; former Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, who declared Michael Jackson another Anna Nicole Smith with the studied media stare of a man starved for the media attention that he was now assured of getting. Who knows, this may lead to a cable show!
Los Angeles. This is why I travel east.
The second reason I write about Michael Jackson, knowing full well all of the other things in the news, is that, well, Michael Jackson was special. Not to put his life above Simpson's, but one might consider devoting time to MJ because his death really is about more than just the salaciousness that Orth and Oxman would like to mine from this. It was about, well, among other things, my teenaged years.
Its 1969 and I am a high school freshman heading to the band room after a Friday night football game in Beaumont, Texas. I am a band member and football player, but as a freshman, I am not on varsity, so I got to march and play in the stands with the band. As I walked to the room from the bus, a cute junior twirler whom I had been pining over for weeks, walked up to me and placed a kiss on my cheek. It was dark enough that not everybody saw us, but enough did to totally embarass me as I did not know what to do, I am 14 remember, so I walked on not understanding what I was feeling. Someone walks past my flustered and nervous self with a transister radio that was playing "I Want You Back". She became my "I Want You Back" crush. Forty years later that moment is still part of my youthful memories (by the way later in the fall I offered the twirler an umbrella at a rain game and we stood there with my arm stretched over her shoulder with me still not knowing what to do).
I also remember 1970 when the Osmonds broke out with their imitation of the Jackson 5's hits, and their subsequent shadowing of the Jacksons in everything they did. Jacksons got a cartoon show, Osmonds got a cartoon show. Fights broke out in high schools and junior high schools across the country between white and black kids over who was coolest, the Jacksons or the Osmonds, the controversy every bit as hot as J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO surveillance of the Black Panthers that same year. I went to an all black high school so no fights broke out, over that issue.
As time continued, I started lying about my relations, as every black kid named Jackson must have during that time. I had distant relatives in Indiana, and, well you get the picture.
There was much innocence in these memories, the kind of innocence that is not much attributed to black youth of my generation. Depictions of my group are usually surrounded by civil rights strife (The Learning Tree), or inner city angst (Cooley High, J.T.). Sometimes all we experienced during that time was an occasional hopeless crush on a girl in short blue and gold tights carrying a baton. And the sound track of that period ranged from "I Want You Back" "ABC" "The Love You Save", "I'll Be There", the latter being the number one "phone sing" song that girls, at least in Southeast Texas, asked you to sing for them while on the phone avoiding chemistry homework, which resulted in a C and threats of sanctions from my father. Literally, there was no other music. Except for James Brown, of course.
Others in their mid to late 40s will focus their memories on the CBS label Jacksons which was a five member group of equally sized brothers, minus Jermaine with Randy added to keep the group as a quintet. Those in their early forties and late 30s will remember Michael Jackson, the one man act and Thriller, and Bad as sign post of their teens. But for a 54 year old, the memories focus on the Motown quintet of uneven sized teenagers with high voices. By the time the other iterations of the Jackson phenomon came about, I was listening to jazz, Stevie Wonder, Earth Wind and Fire, and War. As far as I was concerned, at 20 the Jackson 5, or the Jacksons, or whatever they were calling themselves then, were kid stuff.
But they were part of my youth.
Many of the well meaning pundits want to create a Michael Jackson that brought whites and blacks together in the same music like no other artist before him. This is not true. Duke Ellington holds that distinction--white bobby soxers in the 40s bopped to Ellington (and Count Basie for that matter) as much as their kids and grand kids danced to MJ. Music was not nearly as Balkanized as the social commentators, including Michael Eric Dyson (who should know better) claim to remember. Stevie Wonder was a staple on top 40 radio, and does anybody remember a guy named Jimi Hendrix? We need not embellish MJ to make his contributions important. He was just, literally the greatest pop entertainer in Western history (there probably is a superstar in Asia somewhere whose numbers at concerts or someother category of entertainment dwarf MJs because there are more people over there).
We need to learn to appreciate MJ without the embellishments.
Brace yourself, the embellishments aside, there will be, after the initial shock is over, a race to the bottom to remind us all of his dark side. Like Tom Joyner noted, he was like the relative that you were always concerned about. Much of what is hinted at about MJ's life is indeed troubling, but we have been living and wringing our hands over that stuff for years now.
Let the guy rest in peace.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Conservatives Launch Attack on Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor's nomination is on the books, and now the dirt begins. The Right is not going to go down with dignity (though it is important to note that they will go down on this one). The beginning of the fight began with everyone from Rush to the National Review. The NR is relying on an article in the National Journal by Stuart Taylor which resurrected an article (which was really a speech turned into an article for the Berkeley La Raza Law Review) which it claims describes the real Sotomayor.
Here is the article serving as the basis for the attack:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/PDF?handle=hein.journals/berklarlj13&collection=usjournals&id=93&print=8§ioncount=1&ext=.pdf
Here is what NR said today:
NATIONAL JOURNAL’S STUART TAYLOR HAS A GREAT COLUMN ON SECOND CIRCUIT JUDGE, AND SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE, SONIA SOTOMAYOR’S SPEECH TURNED LAW-REVIEW ARTICLE IN WHICH SHE EXPRESSES HER “HOPE THAT A WISE LATINA WOMAN WITH THE RICHNESS OF HER EXPERIENCES WOULD MORE OFTEN THAN NOT REACH A BETTER CONCLUSION THAN A WHITE MALE WHO HASN’T LIVED THAT LIFE” WHEN EACH IS ACTING AS A JUDGE “IN DECIDING CASES.” (SOTOMAYOR, “A LATINA JUDGE’S VOICE,” 13 BERKELEY LA RAZA L.J. 87 (2002).)
AS TAYLOR PUTS IT:
SO ACCUSTOMED HAVE WE BECOME TO IDENTITY POLITICS THAT IT BARELY CAUSES A RIPPLE WHEN A HIGHLY TOUTED SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE, WHO SITS ON THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT IN NEW YORK, HAS SERIOUSLY SUGGESTED THAT LATINA WOMEN LIKE HER MAKE BETTER JUDGES THAN WHITE MALES.ANY PROMINENT WHITE MALE WOULD BE INSTANTLY AND PROPERLY BANISHED FROM POLITE SOCIETY AS A RACIST AND A SEXIST FOR MAKING AN ANALOGOUS CLAIM OF ETHNIC AND GENDER SUPERIORITY OR INFERIORITY.
The language between the "" is accurate as portrayed by the NR. A complete account of what Stuart Taylor had to say can be found at: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090523_2724.php
What the reference (or Taylor's article for that matter) does not represent is that she was conveying a dialogue with retired 2nd circuit judge Miriam Cederbaum about the role that race and gender have in deciding race and gender cases. Cederbaum noted that the seminal race and gender cases were decided by white males, while Sotomayor notes that most of them were argued by the likes of Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (touche'). The reference in NR makes it look like she was referring to all cases, and she is not. The editing of her speech from which the article came could have been a little tighter, or the students screwed up the editing of the article. In either case, the points offered by Taylor and the NR are without merit.
How the NR and Taylor could get this so wrong is beyond me (not really). A casual glance at the article will reveal the point she was making. For Taylor to characterize the statement as meaning that "her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist" is unfair, inaccurate, and an attempt to conjure up antipathy from the right. This thing has gone viral, and I can expect my conservative bartender to refer to Taylor's and the NR's take on that article word for word, as will Fox.
I'll have a beer.
Here is the article serving as the basis for the attack:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/PDF?handle=hein.journals/berklarlj13&collection=usjournals&id=93&print=8§ioncount=1&ext=.pdf
Here is what NR said today:
NATIONAL JOURNAL’S STUART TAYLOR HAS A GREAT COLUMN ON SECOND CIRCUIT JUDGE, AND SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE, SONIA SOTOMAYOR’S SPEECH TURNED LAW-REVIEW ARTICLE IN WHICH SHE EXPRESSES HER “HOPE THAT A WISE LATINA WOMAN WITH THE RICHNESS OF HER EXPERIENCES WOULD MORE OFTEN THAN NOT REACH A BETTER CONCLUSION THAN A WHITE MALE WHO HASN’T LIVED THAT LIFE” WHEN EACH IS ACTING AS A JUDGE “IN DECIDING CASES.” (SOTOMAYOR, “A LATINA JUDGE’S VOICE,” 13 BERKELEY LA RAZA L.J. 87 (2002).)
AS TAYLOR PUTS IT:
SO ACCUSTOMED HAVE WE BECOME TO IDENTITY POLITICS THAT IT BARELY CAUSES A RIPPLE WHEN A HIGHLY TOUTED SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE, WHO SITS ON THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT IN NEW YORK, HAS SERIOUSLY SUGGESTED THAT LATINA WOMEN LIKE HER MAKE BETTER JUDGES THAN WHITE MALES.ANY PROMINENT WHITE MALE WOULD BE INSTANTLY AND PROPERLY BANISHED FROM POLITE SOCIETY AS A RACIST AND A SEXIST FOR MAKING AN ANALOGOUS CLAIM OF ETHNIC AND GENDER SUPERIORITY OR INFERIORITY.
The language between the "" is accurate as portrayed by the NR. A complete account of what Stuart Taylor had to say can be found at: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090523_2724.php
What the reference (or Taylor's article for that matter) does not represent is that she was conveying a dialogue with retired 2nd circuit judge Miriam Cederbaum about the role that race and gender have in deciding race and gender cases. Cederbaum noted that the seminal race and gender cases were decided by white males, while Sotomayor notes that most of them were argued by the likes of Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (touche'). The reference in NR makes it look like she was referring to all cases, and she is not. The editing of her speech from which the article came could have been a little tighter, or the students screwed up the editing of the article. In either case, the points offered by Taylor and the NR are without merit.
How the NR and Taylor could get this so wrong is beyond me (not really). A casual glance at the article will reveal the point she was making. For Taylor to characterize the statement as meaning that "her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist" is unfair, inaccurate, and an attempt to conjure up antipathy from the right. This thing has gone viral, and I can expect my conservative bartender to refer to Taylor's and the NR's take on that article word for word, as will Fox.
I'll have a beer.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
March 4, 2009
Message to Black Republicans/Conservatives: Man Up my Brothers (or Woman Up my Sisters)
I missed it!!! Last Saturday night I was busy watching W on pay per view. My usual nightly bachanal of liberal banalities, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow do not air on Saturdays, and I have not yet gotten into the habit of watching D.L. Hughley's comedic experiment on CNN. I like D.L. Hughley, he is among the most articulate commentators on politics and society in the comedic world today, and among black comics, I believe that he is extremely intellectual, well informed and analytical (even more so than Chris Rock, who, though he is probably sharper, funnier and as well informed, is not quite up to Hughley in the "policy wonk" category). But like the Daily Show, I previously could not figure out if Hughley's weekly is a news program or a comedy show. But last Saturday it became a news show--with humor.
What I heard is that Hughley hosted his program with guests Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Chuck D. the leader of Public Enemy. This was certainly quite a combination--the head of a Black Nationalist hip hop group and the black leader of the Republicans, hosted by a black leftist humorist on a news network. The talk turned to Rush Limbaugh, who has created quite a stir over the last few days in his incessant criticism of the Obama Administration, Keynesian economics, and anybody who does not kiss his ring. The exchange went as follows:
HUGHLEY: You know what we do, we talk like we're talking now. You have your view. I have mine. We don't need incendiary rhetoric.
STEELE: Exactly.
HUGHLEY: Like Rush Limbaugh, who is the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
STEELE: No, he's not.
HUGHLEY: I will tell you what ...
STEELE: I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
HUGHLEY: You know what? I can appreciate that. But no one will actually decry down some of the things he says. Like when he comes out and says he wants the president to fail. I understand he wants liberalism to fail. Like, I get it's not about the man. But it is still about the idea that he would rather have an idea fail so his idea can move to the forefront. And that would succeed. And that to me is destructive.
STEELE: How is that any different than what was said about George Bush during his presidency?
HUGHLEY: You're absolutely -- let me say something. You're absolutely right.
STEELE: So let's put it into context here. Let's put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. He has his an incendiary. Yes, it's ugly.
Chuck D: You do get a sense that he would say anything.
When three black men as diverse as Chuck D, D.L. Hughley, and Michael Steele sit together and engage in spirited and respectful banter, agreeing on the basics, though not the specifics, we have reason to celebrate.
Two days later, Rush Limbaugh responded:
RUSH: Okay, so I am an entertainer, and I have 20 million listeners, 22 million listeners because of my great song-and-dance routines here. Yes, said Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, I'm incendiary, and yes, it's ugly. Michael Steele, you are head of the RNC. You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the RNC and right now they want nothing to do with it, and when you call them asking them for money, they hang up on you. I hope that changes. I hope the RNC will get its act together. I hope the RNC chairman will realize he's not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it, and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats do not nominate our candidates. It's time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you're having a tough time pulling off. I hope you figure out how to run a primary system. But it seems to me that it's Michael Steele who is off to a shaky start.
And now (drum roll please), Michael Steele's response:
I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking said. It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.
I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh. No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.
Hm.
I watch only one conservative commentator on television. Most mornings are taken up prior to my workout with the conservative ramblings of Joe Scarborough and his sidekick Pat Buchanan. Mika Brzesinski , Zbigniev's daughter and a solid liberal journalist, is his co-host and Scarborough has the good sense and taste to pepper the program with a good mix of liberal and conservative commentators--so much so that one feels after having watched an hour or so of the program that one has enjoyed a full course meal, or an evening of lively debate at a Cambridge University discussion group. The program is that good. While acknowledging that Rush is his good friend, Scarborough and his gang that morning (no Buchanan) parodied Steele unmercifully as not being a MAN. See video.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/04/michael-steele-gets-repea_n_171750.html
When a black man gets parodied by a mix of conservative and liberal white political pundits for not standing up like a man to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, we have a problem.
Its a problem of Steele's own making.
If the Republican Party is going to ever become serious about attracting and maintaining its people of color, then leaders like Blackwell must stop prancing around this problem inside the party, speak up and condemn these statements and divisive actions once and for all.
--Yvonne Davis, Black Republican and Columnist, the Huffington Post
Davis is referring to the sorry spectacle that involved Chris Saltsman, a candidate for RNC national chair, circulating as part of his Christmas greeting to committee members a recording of a parody song, "Barack, the Magic Negro". The typical ploy of apologists for this kind of behavior is to point to some similar lapse on the part of someone on the left or, even better, in the Democratic Party. Heck, some might even break out old Richard Pryor albums to prove Saltsman is no backwoods redneck. But among serious people, this is just another example of the fact that the GOP has a lot of backwoods rednecks in its midst that the GOP has failed to root out. Part of the reason why it has failed to do so is because of several psychological factors ranging from complete indifference, naivete', or just outright racism. And yes, there are folks like that in the Democratic Party as well (this point is included to avoid the inevitable sidetracking that occurs when one talks about racism in the Republican Party with Black Republicans). But one does not expect this from any black man:
Unfortunately, there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race. This is in large measure due to President-Elect Obama being the first African-American elected president...
I don't think any of the concerns that have been expressed in the media about any of the other candidates for RNC chairman should disqualify them. When looked at in the proper context, these concerns are minimal. All of my competitors for this leadership post are fine people.
That's from Ken Blackwell, a black man and a former Secretary of State for Ohio and candidate, at the time, for chair of the RNC.
This is shocking and discouraging. It does not have to be. As a liberal Democrat who sees a need (especially after that white liberal temper tantrum we experienced last spring) for black participation in both parties, I am disappointed in both Blackwell and Steele. But moreso, I am disappointed in Black Republicans (with the exception of Yvonne Davis). Among that community are people that I know and respect who do not agree with me on a number of issues. But among my closest friends and acquaintances of the Conservative/Republican stripe, each of them believes in the basics of black dignity. There are exceptions among Black Republicans generally, but I do not associate with those exceptions if I know them, and most likely will not if I do not know them but meet them in the future.
A man has his limits.
But what makes the whole matter sad is that Black Republicans (BRs) with all of their personal pride and black dignity shoot themselves in the foot for not speaking up against this kind of crap. We have Steele totally destroying a wonderful moment last Saturday with a hat in his hand (or is it handkerchief in his hand) apology to a blowhard--so much so that white conservative television commentators are laughing. And Blackwell failing to stand up against this magic Negro mess is beyond the pale (no pun intended).
None of the following issues have anything to do with black consciousness: school vouchers, gay marriage, private sector vs. public sector solutions to economic problems, aggressive militarism vs. diplomacy, unilateralism vs. multilateralism, tax cuts vs. Keynesian economics, green vs. productive sector approach to the environment, regulation vs. de-regulation, federalism vs. centralized approaches to some problems, prayer in school vs. prohibiting prayer in school, Ten Commandments in the public square vs. No Ten Commandments, or any other religious display in the public square. If black conservatives want to disagree with me on any of these issues, fine. I will work for my position as a believing liberal and have a beer with my conservative black friends after a good day of debate.
I believe most black people feel the same way, especially those whom I know harbor conservative ideas on most of the above issues but vote Democratic everytime. What they say is that Black Republicans are sell outs. This is not true, but it is hard for me to make the argument, even to a black conservative that does not know he/she is conservative and votes Democratic, that BRs are not sellouts with examples like the ones discussed here happening way too often.
The best way for BRs to capture the imagination of conservative Black America is to do more than say that the Republicans are different from the Party that opposed civil rights (in fact, the Rockefeller wing of the party supported civil rights in the 60s). And please, BRs must drop the party of Lincoln business. I hope the battle against slavery has nothing to do with today.
BRs have to show that conservatism and Black Consciousness are not in conflict. Under no measure can anyone claim that this has been done so far. But it is not too late. And it is easy to do.
So here it is, my unsolicited advice to BRs: Simply follow the example of Yvonne Davis. Next time Rush tries to put someone in their place, or somebody like Saltsman tries to get away with some silly mess, very publicly tell them to go to hell, and not to even think about getting mad. Say this in large numbers. Write about it and have shouting matches at the next county Republican luncheon. It worked on Ferraro, and all of the other white Dems who could not imagine supporting a black candidate last year, it will most certainly work in your party.
It might mean a slower track in your party, but what does that tell you? Obama spent a whole year dissing the establishment in the Democratic Party and became President. If you are telling me that the only way to get ahead in the GOP is to not get mad at stuff, well, again, what does that tell you?
In the end, if you man up, you might get beat up, but there will be genuine respect from the community. And with that respect, there will be some votes.
And finally a two party system in the Black Community! Now that's a good thing.
Message to Black Republicans/Conservatives: Man Up my Brothers (or Woman Up my Sisters)
I missed it!!! Last Saturday night I was busy watching W on pay per view. My usual nightly bachanal of liberal banalities, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow do not air on Saturdays, and I have not yet gotten into the habit of watching D.L. Hughley's comedic experiment on CNN. I like D.L. Hughley, he is among the most articulate commentators on politics and society in the comedic world today, and among black comics, I believe that he is extremely intellectual, well informed and analytical (even more so than Chris Rock, who, though he is probably sharper, funnier and as well informed, is not quite up to Hughley in the "policy wonk" category). But like the Daily Show, I previously could not figure out if Hughley's weekly is a news program or a comedy show. But last Saturday it became a news show--with humor.
What I heard is that Hughley hosted his program with guests Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Chuck D. the leader of Public Enemy. This was certainly quite a combination--the head of a Black Nationalist hip hop group and the black leader of the Republicans, hosted by a black leftist humorist on a news network. The talk turned to Rush Limbaugh, who has created quite a stir over the last few days in his incessant criticism of the Obama Administration, Keynesian economics, and anybody who does not kiss his ring. The exchange went as follows:
HUGHLEY: You know what we do, we talk like we're talking now. You have your view. I have mine. We don't need incendiary rhetoric.
STEELE: Exactly.
HUGHLEY: Like Rush Limbaugh, who is the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
STEELE: No, he's not.
HUGHLEY: I will tell you what ...
STEELE: I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
HUGHLEY: You know what? I can appreciate that. But no one will actually decry down some of the things he says. Like when he comes out and says he wants the president to fail. I understand he wants liberalism to fail. Like, I get it's not about the man. But it is still about the idea that he would rather have an idea fail so his idea can move to the forefront. And that would succeed. And that to me is destructive.
STEELE: How is that any different than what was said about George Bush during his presidency?
HUGHLEY: You're absolutely -- let me say something. You're absolutely right.
STEELE: So let's put it into context here. Let's put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. He has his an incendiary. Yes, it's ugly.
Chuck D: You do get a sense that he would say anything.
When three black men as diverse as Chuck D, D.L. Hughley, and Michael Steele sit together and engage in spirited and respectful banter, agreeing on the basics, though not the specifics, we have reason to celebrate.
Two days later, Rush Limbaugh responded:
RUSH: Okay, so I am an entertainer, and I have 20 million listeners, 22 million listeners because of my great song-and-dance routines here. Yes, said Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, I'm incendiary, and yes, it's ugly. Michael Steele, you are head of the RNC. You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the RNC and right now they want nothing to do with it, and when you call them asking them for money, they hang up on you. I hope that changes. I hope the RNC will get its act together. I hope the RNC chairman will realize he's not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it, and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats do not nominate our candidates. It's time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you're having a tough time pulling off. I hope you figure out how to run a primary system. But it seems to me that it's Michael Steele who is off to a shaky start.
And now (drum roll please), Michael Steele's response:
I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking said. It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.
I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh. No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.
Hm.
I watch only one conservative commentator on television. Most mornings are taken up prior to my workout with the conservative ramblings of Joe Scarborough and his sidekick Pat Buchanan. Mika Brzesinski , Zbigniev's daughter and a solid liberal journalist, is his co-host and Scarborough has the good sense and taste to pepper the program with a good mix of liberal and conservative commentators--so much so that one feels after having watched an hour or so of the program that one has enjoyed a full course meal, or an evening of lively debate at a Cambridge University discussion group. The program is that good. While acknowledging that Rush is his good friend, Scarborough and his gang that morning (no Buchanan) parodied Steele unmercifully as not being a MAN. See video.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/04/michael-steele-gets-repea_n_171750.html
When a black man gets parodied by a mix of conservative and liberal white political pundits for not standing up like a man to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, we have a problem.
Its a problem of Steele's own making.
If the Republican Party is going to ever become serious about attracting and maintaining its people of color, then leaders like Blackwell must stop prancing around this problem inside the party, speak up and condemn these statements and divisive actions once and for all.
--Yvonne Davis, Black Republican and Columnist, the Huffington Post
Davis is referring to the sorry spectacle that involved Chris Saltsman, a candidate for RNC national chair, circulating as part of his Christmas greeting to committee members a recording of a parody song, "Barack, the Magic Negro". The typical ploy of apologists for this kind of behavior is to point to some similar lapse on the part of someone on the left or, even better, in the Democratic Party. Heck, some might even break out old Richard Pryor albums to prove Saltsman is no backwoods redneck. But among serious people, this is just another example of the fact that the GOP has a lot of backwoods rednecks in its midst that the GOP has failed to root out. Part of the reason why it has failed to do so is because of several psychological factors ranging from complete indifference, naivete', or just outright racism. And yes, there are folks like that in the Democratic Party as well (this point is included to avoid the inevitable sidetracking that occurs when one talks about racism in the Republican Party with Black Republicans). But one does not expect this from any black man:
Unfortunately, there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race. This is in large measure due to President-Elect Obama being the first African-American elected president...
I don't think any of the concerns that have been expressed in the media about any of the other candidates for RNC chairman should disqualify them. When looked at in the proper context, these concerns are minimal. All of my competitors for this leadership post are fine people.
That's from Ken Blackwell, a black man and a former Secretary of State for Ohio and candidate, at the time, for chair of the RNC.
This is shocking and discouraging. It does not have to be. As a liberal Democrat who sees a need (especially after that white liberal temper tantrum we experienced last spring) for black participation in both parties, I am disappointed in both Blackwell and Steele. But moreso, I am disappointed in Black Republicans (with the exception of Yvonne Davis). Among that community are people that I know and respect who do not agree with me on a number of issues. But among my closest friends and acquaintances of the Conservative/Republican stripe, each of them believes in the basics of black dignity. There are exceptions among Black Republicans generally, but I do not associate with those exceptions if I know them, and most likely will not if I do not know them but meet them in the future.
A man has his limits.
But what makes the whole matter sad is that Black Republicans (BRs) with all of their personal pride and black dignity shoot themselves in the foot for not speaking up against this kind of crap. We have Steele totally destroying a wonderful moment last Saturday with a hat in his hand (or is it handkerchief in his hand) apology to a blowhard--so much so that white conservative television commentators are laughing. And Blackwell failing to stand up against this magic Negro mess is beyond the pale (no pun intended).
None of the following issues have anything to do with black consciousness: school vouchers, gay marriage, private sector vs. public sector solutions to economic problems, aggressive militarism vs. diplomacy, unilateralism vs. multilateralism, tax cuts vs. Keynesian economics, green vs. productive sector approach to the environment, regulation vs. de-regulation, federalism vs. centralized approaches to some problems, prayer in school vs. prohibiting prayer in school, Ten Commandments in the public square vs. No Ten Commandments, or any other religious display in the public square. If black conservatives want to disagree with me on any of these issues, fine. I will work for my position as a believing liberal and have a beer with my conservative black friends after a good day of debate.
I believe most black people feel the same way, especially those whom I know harbor conservative ideas on most of the above issues but vote Democratic everytime. What they say is that Black Republicans are sell outs. This is not true, but it is hard for me to make the argument, even to a black conservative that does not know he/she is conservative and votes Democratic, that BRs are not sellouts with examples like the ones discussed here happening way too often.
The best way for BRs to capture the imagination of conservative Black America is to do more than say that the Republicans are different from the Party that opposed civil rights (in fact, the Rockefeller wing of the party supported civil rights in the 60s). And please, BRs must drop the party of Lincoln business. I hope the battle against slavery has nothing to do with today.
BRs have to show that conservatism and Black Consciousness are not in conflict. Under no measure can anyone claim that this has been done so far. But it is not too late. And it is easy to do.
So here it is, my unsolicited advice to BRs: Simply follow the example of Yvonne Davis. Next time Rush tries to put someone in their place, or somebody like Saltsman tries to get away with some silly mess, very publicly tell them to go to hell, and not to even think about getting mad. Say this in large numbers. Write about it and have shouting matches at the next county Republican luncheon. It worked on Ferraro, and all of the other white Dems who could not imagine supporting a black candidate last year, it will most certainly work in your party.
It might mean a slower track in your party, but what does that tell you? Obama spent a whole year dissing the establishment in the Democratic Party and became President. If you are telling me that the only way to get ahead in the GOP is to not get mad at stuff, well, again, what does that tell you?
In the end, if you man up, you might get beat up, but there will be genuine respect from the community. And with that respect, there will be some votes.
And finally a two party system in the Black Community! Now that's a good thing.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Two British Gentlemen and the American Economy
Posted January 17, 2009
While watching one of the many news and news talk shows, from Morning Joe to American Morning, to News Hour with Jim Lehrer, even to HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, one sees debate between American know it alls on the ailing economy. Economist like Paul Krugman provide credible but inconclusive analysis and political jacks of all trades like George Will and Patrick Buchanan provide easily refutable analysis of economic principles taken from the sweat off the brow of their researchers. The talk does little to clarify and often raises more questions than answers, and inevitably false premises creep in to the national debate and needed clarifications remain unresolved. Overseeing all of this is the fact that our economic woes may be the culminiation of a debate between two British Gentlement, separated by birth by more than a century, who held very different views of national economies and national government. I refer to Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. Since both are dead, the debate between them goes on with current day pundits of both the politican and economic kind speaking on their behalf (but not admitting so), and unfortunately, muddling the theories in their explanation.
While the purpose of this post is not to advocate for one gentleman's theory over the other, I do believe it is time to look at what Smith and Keynes offered for our times. Economic theories are complex fare and require far more analysis than offered here, but for that matter far more analysis than has been offered in some of the leading media outlets, including the financial and economic press. So I will do no better and hopefully no worse than the media when I reduce Adam Smith's theories to a mantra--his invisible hand mantra. By that it is assumed that economies, made up of markets, are self-healing guided by an invisble hand. Players in markets act rationally, which is toward self interests. A field of competition made up of rationally acting self interested players produces a Darwinian set of winners and losers, and the market adjusts to each little micro competition which when counted by the millions produces macroeconomic results--presumably all for the better. All of this activity is done in the private sector.
Such a market does not, in theory, need a lot of regulation since it operates off of a rather organic thesis. Darwinian winning and losing is natural and there is something about that need to succeed and the competition that protects winners and discards losers that keeps all or most outcomes within manageable parameters.
John Maynard Keynes might not be a foil for Smith, but by proposing the injection of government in the regulatory life of the economy as well as ensuring that economy's liquidity through government spending Smith's invisible hand gets a little visible guidance. Keynes' theories were the basis of the New Deal, and in a bit more extreme form, the socialization of Great Britain during the post war years preceding the government of Margaret Thatcher. Britain's socialization was extreme and bizarre and lead to the impoverishment of that world power during that period. Nonetheless the American version fueled the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, and became pretty much the way government economic management was handled until the ideologically based changes wrought by the Reagan Administration.
Since deregulation and tax cuts this country has had its most dangerous periods of deficit spending, forcing economist to rethink some basic notions of how economies run when government is broke--spending more than one has means broke. I took graduate economics courses during the 80s and was told about the crowding out effect. That was supposed to be about how deficit spending forced government to go to the credit markets for money, raising the price of money via the supply and demand function, and making credit unavailable or more expensive for private sector players (and usually growth slows as well) . In minicosm, that is how exactly what happens and its called recession and the evidence of such can be found in the failures of developing country after country especially during the sovereign debt crisis of the 80's (the crisis is still going on, by the way).
For purposes of the developed states--ie the industrialized countries, recessions came and went, but a permanent state of recession has not occurred. Much of this has to do with complexities in financial markets, and, among other things, the creativity of the major players in these markets. Back to Adam Smith, assuming that everyone is a rational actor seeking maximum gain, the markets which provide liquidity to the system produced that liquidity through innovation. But if the private sector is crowded out because of the gorilla known as the US budget in the room getting its share of cash, where does the liquidity for private sector growth come from? It comes from new markets and new financial products.
The new markets are, of course, the newly industrialized countries, including China, and the new products are the product of creative packaging of the same small pie. New kinds of lending, new kinds of ways of profiting off that lending, and new kinds of ways of marketing these new products. A ponzi scheme except that the last one holding the bag was everyone in the market.
This was not supposed to happen. Our 18th century British gentleman Mr. Smith counted on rational behavior. His thesis lives or dies on whether economic historians define our period as one of rational behavior or irrational greed. Keynes would not seem to be a catch all solution because government is notoriously bad at running things and eventually government spending when out of control, as it usually is, produces the same deficits and crowding out that business oriented tax cuts do. Neither approach alone solves this mess.
But who ever said that we had to rely only one or the other?
While watching one of the many news and news talk shows, from Morning Joe to American Morning, to News Hour with Jim Lehrer, even to HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, one sees debate between American know it alls on the ailing economy. Economist like Paul Krugman provide credible but inconclusive analysis and political jacks of all trades like George Will and Patrick Buchanan provide easily refutable analysis of economic principles taken from the sweat off the brow of their researchers. The talk does little to clarify and often raises more questions than answers, and inevitably false premises creep in to the national debate and needed clarifications remain unresolved. Overseeing all of this is the fact that our economic woes may be the culminiation of a debate between two British Gentlement, separated by birth by more than a century, who held very different views of national economies and national government. I refer to Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. Since both are dead, the debate between them goes on with current day pundits of both the politican and economic kind speaking on their behalf (but not admitting so), and unfortunately, muddling the theories in their explanation.
While the purpose of this post is not to advocate for one gentleman's theory over the other, I do believe it is time to look at what Smith and Keynes offered for our times. Economic theories are complex fare and require far more analysis than offered here, but for that matter far more analysis than has been offered in some of the leading media outlets, including the financial and economic press. So I will do no better and hopefully no worse than the media when I reduce Adam Smith's theories to a mantra--his invisible hand mantra. By that it is assumed that economies, made up of markets, are self-healing guided by an invisble hand. Players in markets act rationally, which is toward self interests. A field of competition made up of rationally acting self interested players produces a Darwinian set of winners and losers, and the market adjusts to each little micro competition which when counted by the millions produces macroeconomic results--presumably all for the better. All of this activity is done in the private sector.
Such a market does not, in theory, need a lot of regulation since it operates off of a rather organic thesis. Darwinian winning and losing is natural and there is something about that need to succeed and the competition that protects winners and discards losers that keeps all or most outcomes within manageable parameters.
John Maynard Keynes might not be a foil for Smith, but by proposing the injection of government in the regulatory life of the economy as well as ensuring that economy's liquidity through government spending Smith's invisible hand gets a little visible guidance. Keynes' theories were the basis of the New Deal, and in a bit more extreme form, the socialization of Great Britain during the post war years preceding the government of Margaret Thatcher. Britain's socialization was extreme and bizarre and lead to the impoverishment of that world power during that period. Nonetheless the American version fueled the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, and became pretty much the way government economic management was handled until the ideologically based changes wrought by the Reagan Administration.
Since deregulation and tax cuts this country has had its most dangerous periods of deficit spending, forcing economist to rethink some basic notions of how economies run when government is broke--spending more than one has means broke. I took graduate economics courses during the 80s and was told about the crowding out effect. That was supposed to be about how deficit spending forced government to go to the credit markets for money, raising the price of money via the supply and demand function, and making credit unavailable or more expensive for private sector players (and usually growth slows as well) . In minicosm, that is how exactly what happens and its called recession and the evidence of such can be found in the failures of developing country after country especially during the sovereign debt crisis of the 80's (the crisis is still going on, by the way).
For purposes of the developed states--ie the industrialized countries, recessions came and went, but a permanent state of recession has not occurred. Much of this has to do with complexities in financial markets, and, among other things, the creativity of the major players in these markets. Back to Adam Smith, assuming that everyone is a rational actor seeking maximum gain, the markets which provide liquidity to the system produced that liquidity through innovation. But if the private sector is crowded out because of the gorilla known as the US budget in the room getting its share of cash, where does the liquidity for private sector growth come from? It comes from new markets and new financial products.
The new markets are, of course, the newly industrialized countries, including China, and the new products are the product of creative packaging of the same small pie. New kinds of lending, new kinds of ways of profiting off that lending, and new kinds of ways of marketing these new products. A ponzi scheme except that the last one holding the bag was everyone in the market.
This was not supposed to happen. Our 18th century British gentleman Mr. Smith counted on rational behavior. His thesis lives or dies on whether economic historians define our period as one of rational behavior or irrational greed. Keynes would not seem to be a catch all solution because government is notoriously bad at running things and eventually government spending when out of control, as it usually is, produces the same deficits and crowding out that business oriented tax cuts do. Neither approach alone solves this mess.
But who ever said that we had to rely only one or the other?
Friday, December 19, 2008
And the Next Senator from New York Is...
It is truly amazing how members of the press consistently fail to ask the right questions. On the issue of whether Caroline Kennedy is qualified to be the next Senator from New York, the answer is an unqualified yes.
But the better questions, and the ones that the press and opinion makers need to ask is whether she is the most qualified, and whether she should get it.
Starting with my second question first, whether she should get it, I am inclined to ask another question--is the fact that she is a Kennedy (and not just any Kennedy--but the daughter of the main man Kennedy of them all--JFK) germaine to the issue. The answer is yes. Caroline Schlossberg is not asking for the position. Caroline Kennedy is. But for her middle/pre marriage name, Caroline Schlossberg would be another socialite (with a good track record) requesting the appointment. It would be a request that would be easily turned down by Governor Patterson. But as Caroline Kennedy, Patterson's choice becomes more difficult.
But why is it more difficult 45 years after Camelot? Because a lot of Americans long for those days, even if they weren't alive during Camelot. Camelot evinces dreams of a an optimistic time, a political era named for a Broadway play about a fictional English king whose legend of gallantry remains a part of English lore to this day. Americans want a monarchy. Not the kind that you have to support with tax dollars and curtsy to, but one whose family history we can follow with sadness, happiness, pride, and sometimes even derision. Like the Windsors of the United Kingdom, the Kennedy's every move is the subject of fascination. But unlike the entertainment celebrities with whom they are often compared, their's is a family of uncommon devotion to public service. And unlike the Windsors, their public service is usually quite serious and not the socialite type stuff that the Windsors returned to after Diana was killed.
So for all intents and purposes the Kennedys are an exceptional family of exceptional public service. Some may claim that this is really about power. But with the exception of Ted Kennedy, no one in that family has had any real political power since Robert Kennedy was Senator of New York. But the public service has remained a family virtue in the intervening 40 years.
But does all of this mean that Caroline Kennedy should get the job? These facts and her own public service does not mean that she should get the job. In New York City alone there are thousands of equally talented and involved people who have raised money, designed public service initiatives, organized communities, written books on policy, taught inner city children that could do as good if not a better job than Caroline Kennedy. Who is advocating for them?
And then there are people like Andrew Cuomo, the New York Attorney General and the son of the former New York governor and a member of a famous political family as well. But he does have elective office behind him and a history in the political process (how he got his initial start might be as interesting as Caroline's present efforts).
The fact of the matter is that it is unlikely that the thousands of unknowns in New York who could do as good a job as Kennedy will ever get the chance. Perhaps it is understood that a political track record is a pre-requisite for such an appointed position. Any one can run, but perhaps proven people ought to be appointed.
Caroline Kennedy is asking for an appointment. In 2010 when she has to run, she will be the incumbant. The rules change and for Democratic rank and file, the process must be frustrating.
Craig Jackson
But the better questions, and the ones that the press and opinion makers need to ask is whether she is the most qualified, and whether she should get it.
Starting with my second question first, whether she should get it, I am inclined to ask another question--is the fact that she is a Kennedy (and not just any Kennedy--but the daughter of the main man Kennedy of them all--JFK) germaine to the issue. The answer is yes. Caroline Schlossberg is not asking for the position. Caroline Kennedy is. But for her middle/pre marriage name, Caroline Schlossberg would be another socialite (with a good track record) requesting the appointment. It would be a request that would be easily turned down by Governor Patterson. But as Caroline Kennedy, Patterson's choice becomes more difficult.
But why is it more difficult 45 years after Camelot? Because a lot of Americans long for those days, even if they weren't alive during Camelot. Camelot evinces dreams of a an optimistic time, a political era named for a Broadway play about a fictional English king whose legend of gallantry remains a part of English lore to this day. Americans want a monarchy. Not the kind that you have to support with tax dollars and curtsy to, but one whose family history we can follow with sadness, happiness, pride, and sometimes even derision. Like the Windsors of the United Kingdom, the Kennedy's every move is the subject of fascination. But unlike the entertainment celebrities with whom they are often compared, their's is a family of uncommon devotion to public service. And unlike the Windsors, their public service is usually quite serious and not the socialite type stuff that the Windsors returned to after Diana was killed.
So for all intents and purposes the Kennedys are an exceptional family of exceptional public service. Some may claim that this is really about power. But with the exception of Ted Kennedy, no one in that family has had any real political power since Robert Kennedy was Senator of New York. But the public service has remained a family virtue in the intervening 40 years.
But does all of this mean that Caroline Kennedy should get the job? These facts and her own public service does not mean that she should get the job. In New York City alone there are thousands of equally talented and involved people who have raised money, designed public service initiatives, organized communities, written books on policy, taught inner city children that could do as good if not a better job than Caroline Kennedy. Who is advocating for them?
And then there are people like Andrew Cuomo, the New York Attorney General and the son of the former New York governor and a member of a famous political family as well. But he does have elective office behind him and a history in the political process (how he got his initial start might be as interesting as Caroline's present efforts).
The fact of the matter is that it is unlikely that the thousands of unknowns in New York who could do as good a job as Kennedy will ever get the chance. Perhaps it is understood that a political track record is a pre-requisite for such an appointed position. Any one can run, but perhaps proven people ought to be appointed.
Caroline Kennedy is asking for an appointment. In 2010 when she has to run, she will be the incumbant. The rules change and for Democratic rank and file, the process must be frustrating.
Craig Jackson
Our First Fight
Obama picks Rick Warren to give invocation at the Inauguration. Rick Warren supported an initiative in California that took away marital rights from gays granted months earlier by the state's Supreme Court. He compared gay marriage to marriage between siblings and between an older man and a girl.
All hell has broken loose.
And for good reason. Obama has asked for understanding from the gay community that people of different views will be represented at the inauguration. But many gay people regard the California proposition as a referendum to live their lives--basic stuff in the humanity department. So how could gay citizens be asked to compromise on something so basic as the right to express themselves with the love of their life in a way recognized by the law and society like everyone else?
It might be that gay citizens might need to settle for recognition under the law for now. Society, if California is any indication, is not going there now. The California Supreme Court could not justify denying marriage rights to gay Californians under that state's constitution. Yet in the incredibly interesting world of California law and politics, in a manner that defies the logic of political philosophy, a vote was held to take rights away from a segment of society. In my view, it is not possible to justify similar discrimination under the national constitution. In a few words, equal protection requires legal recognition of gay marriage.
The social part is a little trickier. Starting with the religious groups, my ever developing knowledge of First Amendment Law tells me that the freedom of religion clause would preclude the government from requiring a church to perform a ceremony or to recognize the union of persons of the same sex. Right or wrong, one's religious beliefs are one's religious beliefs. A pastor does not need to recognize the right of a same sex couple to marry.
But the county clerk must!
Rick Warren and other opponents of the initiative are overreaching when they try to wipe the concept off the public books for any circumstance. This is why the rejection of the marriage right is so disappointing. Warren need never perform a ceremony between two men or two women. He is protected by the First Amendment. The overreaching comes from a paranoia held by many among, as I am learning, conservative and moderate clergy and religious folks, that a gay couple calling themselves married is going to undermine the relationships and bedhopping of heterosexuals seeking love and sex in every location from the Church to singles bars.
Others may believe that the fact of open homosexuality is the problem already before us. This is an undebateble proposition. People who feel that way are not going to be convinced to change by anything that I say. But, while one cannot mandate an embrace of the lifestyle, tolerance is required in a civil society.
In a word, anti-gay movement activists, which in the case of the California initiative, includes Rick Warren, add nothing of value to the notion of civil discourse in this country. Indeed, they advocated against gay marriage for no rational reason that I can discern.
That having been said, to depict Warren as just another run of the mill right wing "Christian" is not well founded. Gavin Newsome, the activist mayor of San Francisco who helped get all of this started by pushing city legislation for marriage in his city, spoke on the Rachel Maddow program on MSNBC on December 18. While denouncing the choice by the President Elect to invite Warren, on several occasions Newsome made a point of distinguishing Warren from the evangelical right likes of the late Jerry Falwell, among others. "He really is a nice man." Newsome said while noting a number of breaks from right wing evangelical rhetoric and policy in the areas of poverty and the need for it to be addressed, torture and how the US should not implement torture under any circumstances, climate change and environmentalism--all positions that many right wing Christians apparently feel divinely obligated to ignore, or stand against positive change.
Rick Warren is no Jerry Falwell, and this ought to be recognized. Members of the gay community critical of the invitation maintain their credibility not by depicting Warren as a youthful Falwell. He is not. They maintain their credibility by critiquing the invitation on its merits, a strong case, while maintaining, in public statements, the distinction between Warren and the evangelical right. Mayor Newsome understands this.
All hell has broken loose.
And for good reason. Obama has asked for understanding from the gay community that people of different views will be represented at the inauguration. But many gay people regard the California proposition as a referendum to live their lives--basic stuff in the humanity department. So how could gay citizens be asked to compromise on something so basic as the right to express themselves with the love of their life in a way recognized by the law and society like everyone else?
It might be that gay citizens might need to settle for recognition under the law for now. Society, if California is any indication, is not going there now. The California Supreme Court could not justify denying marriage rights to gay Californians under that state's constitution. Yet in the incredibly interesting world of California law and politics, in a manner that defies the logic of political philosophy, a vote was held to take rights away from a segment of society. In my view, it is not possible to justify similar discrimination under the national constitution. In a few words, equal protection requires legal recognition of gay marriage.
The social part is a little trickier. Starting with the religious groups, my ever developing knowledge of First Amendment Law tells me that the freedom of religion clause would preclude the government from requiring a church to perform a ceremony or to recognize the union of persons of the same sex. Right or wrong, one's religious beliefs are one's religious beliefs. A pastor does not need to recognize the right of a same sex couple to marry.
But the county clerk must!
Rick Warren and other opponents of the initiative are overreaching when they try to wipe the concept off the public books for any circumstance. This is why the rejection of the marriage right is so disappointing. Warren need never perform a ceremony between two men or two women. He is protected by the First Amendment. The overreaching comes from a paranoia held by many among, as I am learning, conservative and moderate clergy and religious folks, that a gay couple calling themselves married is going to undermine the relationships and bedhopping of heterosexuals seeking love and sex in every location from the Church to singles bars.
Others may believe that the fact of open homosexuality is the problem already before us. This is an undebateble proposition. People who feel that way are not going to be convinced to change by anything that I say. But, while one cannot mandate an embrace of the lifestyle, tolerance is required in a civil society.
In a word, anti-gay movement activists, which in the case of the California initiative, includes Rick Warren, add nothing of value to the notion of civil discourse in this country. Indeed, they advocated against gay marriage for no rational reason that I can discern.
That having been said, to depict Warren as just another run of the mill right wing "Christian" is not well founded. Gavin Newsome, the activist mayor of San Francisco who helped get all of this started by pushing city legislation for marriage in his city, spoke on the Rachel Maddow program on MSNBC on December 18. While denouncing the choice by the President Elect to invite Warren, on several occasions Newsome made a point of distinguishing Warren from the evangelical right likes of the late Jerry Falwell, among others. "He really is a nice man." Newsome said while noting a number of breaks from right wing evangelical rhetoric and policy in the areas of poverty and the need for it to be addressed, torture and how the US should not implement torture under any circumstances, climate change and environmentalism--all positions that many right wing Christians apparently feel divinely obligated to ignore, or stand against positive change.
Rick Warren is no Jerry Falwell, and this ought to be recognized. Members of the gay community critical of the invitation maintain their credibility not by depicting Warren as a youthful Falwell. He is not. They maintain their credibility by critiquing the invitation on its merits, a strong case, while maintaining, in public statements, the distinction between Warren and the evangelical right. Mayor Newsome understands this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)