Does the Democratic Party Exploit the Vote?

….You bet the Party does. It is not a mystery that black Americans constitute the largest single voting block in the United States. Blacks contend that voting Republican is not an option; it is a party largely deemed racist by blacks. I will admit this is a gross generalization; however, it is one that has prevailed since party realignment during the 1932 election of FDR.

Blaming the Democratic Party for this trend is not the right approach. Fault is clearly on the Republican Party. Since the election of Dwight Eisenhower, Republicans have marginalized the black vote. They have largely been seen as an anti-New Deal Party. And as of late, there has been a shift in the Hispanic vote, too. Thus the Republican Party can only blame themselves for alienating racial minorities, as well as gay and lesbian populations. So, what does this have to do with Democrats exploiting the vote?

Black Americans feel as though they have no choice but to endorse the Democratic Party. If one were to listen to the Republican platform, it is clear that Republicans are in bed with the Christian right and the wealthiest segment of the country. If Republicans hope and care to be relevant to blacks, they must change their language. If not blacks will continue to vote in a very solid block. And joining them in this block will be Hispanics and white allies to blacks, gays, and lesbians. In the 2012 election, Asian Americans joined both blacks and Hispanics in guaranteeing Obama a second term. Some political scientist once thought that younger populations of blacks might gravitate toward the Republican Party; however, with a candidate like Obama and a sense that the Republican Party is out of touch with 21st century realities, younger blacks endorsing Republican candidate Mitt Romney or other members of the party did not come to fruition in 2012..

Another population exploited are gays and lesbians. Why would a gay person or his/her allies endorse a party that clearly campaigns against them? You might recall during the 2004 election, the Republican Party made gay marriage part of its national platform. In a comical fashion, conservative Americans clearly forgot about a crumpling economy amidst two global conflicts. The only thing that concerned many of them was gay marriage. Thus, a number of states made gay marriage a part of state-wide referendums. Recently, as I have noted on this blog, NBA player Jason Collins came out as being gay. I am sure it will not surprise you to learn that his calculated move earned him national praise; and not just from many Americans who endorse gayness and gay marriage — but by two Democratic presidents. If the Republican Party wanted to change its message some, it would have encouraged members of its leadership to endorse Jason Collins’ actions. Maybe have George W. Bush or H.W. Bush call Collins and congratulate him for being brave. But that did not happen. When Republicans are mentioned in the gay category…it usually has something to do with promoting anti-gay marriage legislation, or a member of the Republican Party came out of the closet as being gay.

Collins’ actions earned him a political future. Many are calling him a rising political star within the Democratic Party. He has been asked to take part in party fundraising, and possibly, be an invited keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. Boy those Democrats are quick.

Race, Ideology, and Independent Schools

I am sharing a two-part piece from a paper I wrote entitled Getting Real About Whiteness in Independent Schools. I broke away from script just a bit in the reading of this primarily due to length. The goal of course is to show a historical relationship dating back to the 1960s about why many African-American teachers are pronounced liberal in their construct. In this segment, I start in a more philosophical fashion denoting a mere semblance of black identity. In the second segment, I will delve into the more recent elements of the shaping of the black faculty member.

The Lie of Critical Thought

While a graduate student, I wrote a paper entitled A Marxist Synthesis to Educational Analysis. In this paper, I addressed a shift promulgated by neo-Marxists vis-à-vis culturalist theory. Aspects of cultural theory shaped my educational and pedagogical premise that students must be free thinkers. Furthermore, if they are to become free thinkers, they must construct their own synthesis toward ideas and ideals… not a mere synthesis of their academic environment. Much of my conclusion is shared by Stanley Fish, a wonderful leftist academic who always looked to empower the well prepared student through Socratic discussions. His post-modern analysis toward radical theory, queer theory, and deconstruction has continued to revolutionize education.

As a student, I recall on a number of occasions challenging the status of my campus. Often frustrated by the same white protestant male espousing the same political, ideological, and religious beliefs. From class to class, I watched my anger grow as I sought to understand my own learning and identity from the likes of Richard Wright and W.E.B. Du Bois. I knew they would not sing the same old company lesson plan articulated by one-dimensional institutions. I asked more than once: Why the preachy lessons on moral abstract construct espoused by ONE ideological thought? or, What does the black teacher think? or Where are the black, Asian, American Indian teachers? How about ONE Jewish teacher? Maybe a pro-Palestinian professor?  Creating institutions that inculcate the same values and norms does not allow students to become critical thinkers. It is a lie. We (including myself) recycle the same language but, each time we do, we ask students to think critically. Here is what Fish has to say:

…the Academic Bill of Rights, the Student Bill of Rights and the Princeton Student Bill of Rights all speak of the importance of promoting and protecting the academic freedom of students. What could this possibly mean? The only freedom students rightly have is the freedom to vote with their feet if they do not like the syllabus in a particular course. They are not free to demand on the basis of an intellectual diversity or balance or pluralism or some other specious abstraction that the syllabus be changed to suit their personal or ideological inclinations. Nor are students free to introduce into a classroom issues or perspectives that are judged by an instructor to be beside the point he or she wishes to explore. Instructors are free to say to a student, that may be an interesting question, but it is not one we shall be asking here.

The rhetoric of academic freedom for students is a subset of the rhetoric of student rights. But students have no rights, except the right to competent and responsible instruction. They certainly do not have any right to be instructed by a conservative teacher or a liberal teacher or a religious teacher or a white teacher or a black teacher or a teacher of any color. The idea that students have rights often accompanies the idea that students are customers and teachers, providers. Students are not customers and if we survey their preferences and alter our product accordingly, we will not only have betrayed our professional responsibility; we will have betrayed them

Thought for Thursday: White Privilege by Mrs. Chili

My colleague and friend wrote a great post regarding the Boston bombings and race; I have been thinking about this a great deal, but have yet to share it people. I find it interesting that so many folks assumed that this event transpired under the hand of Arabs. Feel free to swing by her blog and leave a comment regarding her post.

My husband doesn’t have a facebook profile, so as a consequence, he rarely sees the memes that make their way around the web (unless I send them to him, of course).

Yesterday, I came across this one, and I remember thinking (with no small dose of bitterness) that truer words have rarely been spoken.  I’ve been engaged in a couple of different conversations about the use of the word “terrorist,” and about how that word has become synonymous with “Middle Eastern” in the last decade or so, and in the most polite of these discussions, I’ve been accused of being a “guilty liberal” who is afraid of language (which I think is kind of ironic, given what I do for a living, but whatever).

My beloved came home from work yesterday on a tear.  There had been numerous – and patently false – reports that a suspect had been arrested in the Boston bombing case.  Several of those reports indicated that the suspect in question was of Middle Eastern extraction (in fact, seemingly moments after the blasts, there were reports of a Saudi man being detained for questioning (which also turned out to be false) and this lovely little exchange on Twitter – notice the time stamps)

The truth is that we’re just as good at creating terrorists here as we are at encouraging them abroad.  Let’s not forget that James Earl Ray and Byron De La Beckwith were white guys.   Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were white guys.  So was Jarred Laughtner.  So was Scott Roeder and Jim David Adkisson and James W. Von Brunn and James Holmes.  So was Ted Kaczynski and Bruce Edward Ivins.

Shall I go on?

The fact of the matter is that one’s national origin has exactly zero to do with one’s propensity to commit acts of terror.  That we continue to allow the kinds of associations that I’ve been seeing (and continue to see) only perpetuates the violence, fear, and hatred.  Stop it.  Stop making assumptions about facts not in evidence.  Stop lumping people together because of how they dress or their accent or their immigration status – and stop others from doing that when you witness it.  We’re better than this; we HAVE to be, or we’re going to destroy ourselves.  If we can’t figure this out, perhaps that’s no less than we deserve.

“Civil Unionism” and True Marriage Equality by Jack Detiveaux

This post was written by Jack Detiveaux, a senior student at Houston Christian. Jack was a student in my AP US  History course during his junior year, and is currently a senior enrolled in my AP US Government & Politics course. Jack will most likely be attending some New England university next fall. This blog post emerged from a class discussion regarding the extent to which government should regulate marriage. Jack, being a Libertarian, presented an interesting argument during one of our class discussions. I must state that I too agree with the notion that marriage should go unregulated except for contractual elements.

When looking at the issue of marriage inequality in the United States, it seems clear that under the Civil Rights Act, there is no basis for any legislation prohibiting homosexual marriage. As a conservative libertarian and Christian, even I realize this and understand that in the current system of marriage legislation, marriage equality is a must. However, the current system of marriage legislation by way of state-by-state regulation is completely unjustified upon closer inspection. Marriage is a cultural institution for which the only real justification provided for governmental recognition is taxation and census taking. To assert that it should be regulated violates the separation of church and state. This changes the question from ‘should marriage equality exist under the government?’ to ‘should marriage recognition (hetero- or homosexual) exist under the government’. The answer to the latter question is a firm no. However, one cannot honestly go about thinking that the idea of the unification of two individuals can or should be abolished, even in the eyes of the government. The answer to this lies within the system that many states have been passing off as a weak form of ‘marriage equality’ for years: Civil Unions.

When looking at marriage as an institution and its relationship to the government, one realizes a couple things. To start, it is rooted very strongly in religious precedent. The concept of marriage itself implies a spiritual union rather than just the physical. On this basis alone, the regulation of marriage should be deemed unconstitutional as a clear violation of church and state. However another thing one might realize is that the crimes of a marriage are not punishable in the United States. For instance, adultery is not illegal by any means although it clearly violates the implied cultural laws of a marriage. The enforcement of marriage should mean the enforcement of marriage laws but since one doesn’t exist, neither should the other. Lastly, one can see that the only real reason for recognizing the unity of two individuals in the government is for tax and census reasons, which is certainly not reason to violate church and state separation. Taking all of this into account, one really must ask the question of what is constitutional.

The answer to this lies within the Civil Union. Under ideal legislation, a civil union would only be used to identify those who are living together and are eligible for joint taxes as well as for census purposes. The key here however is that this would be the governmental representation of couples both hetero- and homosexual and each “couple” would be treated exactly the same under the law. From here, couples could be ‘married’ under whatever cultural institution they choose whether it be the Christian church or otherwise without government intervention or licensing. As far as this writer is concerned, this should eliminate all problems caused by marriage inequality today. Union-equality would be achieved. Theists shouldn’t be angry as the only true validation of a marriage they need is through their God. No more confusion regarding the definition of marriage. No more violation of church and state law. The civil union based society is truly the most constitutional answer to the current situation regarding marriage inequality.

A Political Season

I recently shared this about myself: I am going to vote early on Monday. I am not sure who I will vote for yet. I am liking what the Republican Party represents. I mean, I just do not understand why African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, women, and the poor would not vote for Mitt and this great party.

I do have a bit of a sense of humor. Or, maybe I am serious. After all, I do live in Texas. I will keep watching Family Guy, South Park, and The Simpsons to aid my sarcasm. Oh, speaking of The Simpsons, I hijacked this political piece below from my friend Mrs. Chili.

Conservative Carson: 5 Ways in Which I Am Conservative

While discussing political ideology in my United States History course the other day, a few students pointed out that I am pretty far left of center on the spectrum. Of course this conversation was all in good fun. I do a pretty good job keeping my politics out of my class; however, I do point out that my leftist leanings impact my historical interpretation in terms of schools of thought. I find it important that students have a pretty good sense as to where I stand historically. Plus, it is important that they challenge my historical interpretations in class. Though young, they are already a part of the political socialization that serves as a base for individual thought. My particular construct will not usurp their parents. That is not my job; it is my job to challenge their held beliefs. I cannot allow a student to leave my class thinking that it is okay to be a sexist just because men treat women as an inferior gender; I cannot allow a student to leave my class thinking that racism is okay. My greatest challenge besides the sexist thought has to be homophobia. There is an attitude shared by many that gays and lesbians are inferior and thus should be treated that way. That is just silly.

Although my politics does not belong in the class, I do believe that my ideological views should be expressed. I do not brain wash. I do push at times. I refuse to allow a student to pass off information ascertained from a sound bite. The same is true for me. Students have every right to question my sources.

All of this brings me to this point: In honor of my students, I offer this list of why I am conservative. Courtney Brady reminded me daily to post this list after I claimed to hold at least five conservative views. I must admit, I had to work very hard to come up with this list.

1.) I do not have a state teaching certification. I know history and I know it very well. My undergraduate and graduate degrees should be enough. Because of that, I knew I would only teach in private schools. Most do not require such a document. This is especially true among the best schools. This also means that I do not have to teach to a particular government required exam. My students do not have to miss any of my class time practicing to take such an exam. I love that the government is not involved in my classroom. This is pretty darn conservative.

2.) I refuse to spend too much money on my car. They are designed to get me safely from point A to point B. You will not catch me driving a big truck or SUV. I am a modest person when it comes to automobiles.

3.) I sport a very conservative hair cut. If I wanted to display my more bohemian side, I would go back to the fro. Displaying my race and liberalism that allowed Blacks to reach middle class would clearly be on stage. Note the old picture of me with a fro circa 2007:

4.) I dress conservatively when I come to campus. See post here. Note the bow tie.

5.) I teach at a very conservative school; I have colleagues who would not last 10 minutes. And as a bonus, I attended a very conservative private school in high school and college.

Are Southerners Racist? Part I

After engaging in a very long conversation with a friend of mine about the South, I have elected to devote my next 3 – 4 post on the topic of the racist South.

1. Are southerners racists?

2. Is the South racist?

Historically, the South has resisted the notion of progressive change; traditionally speaking, the South has not embraced legislation that empowers the poor, gays/lesbians, and blacks. It would not be wholly inaccurate to conclude that southerners’ sense of disdain towards Barrack Obama in 2008 was predicated on race and their racist attitudes.

I was first introduced to V.O. Key during my sophomore year of college. Dr. Mark Elrod discussed Key’s Southern Politics and his Theory of Critical Elections. Key contends that at historical points, a balance of power occurred. Hence, social and economic forces were at work and responsible for such political realignment. Case in point: After the historical period in U.S. history known as Reconstruction, Republicans dominated the national landscape except for in the deep South[1]; in the South, the formation of anti-Lincoln/anti-Republicans dominated the scene. Southerners hate for the party and the president who emancipated the American Negro was fervent. Born was the solid South. This period was defined by one in which Southerners used racists tactics to uphold Jim Crow laws by electing only Democrats from 1877 to 1964. The Ku Klux Klan was instrumental in maintaining a state of racist order as a process of subjugation towards black Southerners.

By 1980, a major shift transpired in which Ronald Reagan swept the South and the rest of the nation in a promise of restoring conservatism. Much of this promise was born on Reagan’s promise to reduce the size of the government, and to restore social order brought about during the decades of the 1960s and the 1970s. Again, much of the progress during the 60s and the 70s were aimed at aiding gays/lesbians and racial minorities. Many Southerners today are simply a product of political realignment. Thus, they once embraced Jim Crow policies until federal legislation and the Supreme Court deemed it illegal. Conservatives reacted to the forced political actions of the federal government by seeking conservative candidates who would embrace the ideology of states’ rights. In 1980, Reagan clearly endorsed this position, which was clear by his objection to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965; it was his position that the federal government could not legislate discrimination among civilians.

Though not a new ideological position of Southerners, it was one that many minorities deemed as threatening to their welfare. With the election of Obama in 2008, many Southern whites screamed as though the world had come to an end. Many of Obama’s policies were seen as overly progressive towards liberal ideology; but in truth, Obama has helped (better yet saved) white elites. Though I supported his stimulus policy, many throughout the country did not. Liberals saw it as a testament of serving the needs of the wealthy.  And, with his health care policy still under attack, it is safe to say that Obama has done little to “fully” threaten the traditional base of the new Solid South; a Republican dominated South. One might contend then that race is a major reason in the South’s dislike of Obama. What makes matters worse is that Obama is not just a black man in the White House; he is the product of interracial sex…. A black man and a white woman; he represents the greatest threat to southern ideology.

So, I am not saying the South is a racist institution; I am saying that one must wonder why so many Southerners dislike a president who in theory has very little power.

---

[1] After the death of Abraham Lincoln, VP Andrew Johnson was a southern sympathizer and one who theoretically did not represent the Republican Party. It should also be noted that Grover Cleveland was elected in the years 1888 and 1896 as a Democrat. Republicans would continue to dominate the office of the presidency until FDR.

One Nation Under God… Indivisible? By John Rasplicka

John Rasplicka is a junior in my Advanced Placement United States History class. One of our required readings is Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. The point of view reflected in this piece is that of Mr. Rasplicka.

I recently watched Good Will Hunting at the request of my teacher, Mr. Carson; in that movie there is one particular line that he said to watch for: “Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, that book will f*ckin’ knock you on your a**.” I didn’t understand it at the time, but as I read the book for Mr. Carson’s course the last few months, it has.  I have grown up in a very conservative, Republican home, family, and community all my life.  Howard Zinn is, to say the least, a liberal.  I found that out not only through reading A People’s History, but also through recently reading Zinn’s response to the question “What’s the Future of the American Dream?”

In his response to what the future of the American dream is, Zinn asserts that if America did not spend so much on its military, and instead invested its money in to its people, it would be respected rather than feared around the world.  Zinn first criticizes America’s military power, stating that this power is used to extend its power across the globe; furthermore, Zinn calls for use of American money not for defense but for its people in terms of provision for fundamental necessities for every American. Zinn’s purpose is to challenge a widely held view (that military power is paramount) and introduce his view (that every American should be provided necessities such as food, health care, decent housing, and jobs. Given the fact that Zinn himself is a leftist and therefore holds leftist views, he aims to address those with much more conservative views and challenge their beliefs.

My conservative views and beliefs were, without a doubt, challenged. Though I have wrestled with why our military is so large, one of the largest areas of spending for our government, the idea of free healthcare, free food, housing, and jobs… for everyone? It could just be my upbringing, but the idea of free healthcare, food, housing, and jobs for everyone, even if some are taxed more than others? Simply preposterous, at least to the seventeen year old, upper class white male from Houston.

I am not close-minded to view points other than my own, but I am logical. I wonder why someone should receive something if they do not get taxed (read: pay) for it, why the “handout mentality,” in which the government will help pay for or provide whatever your heart desires abounds in our society. To me, Zinn’s response to the future of the American dream seems like a utopia that forever dwells just out of reach, a unicorn: the one thing that, no matter how hard is sought after, cannot be attained. I honestly do not think that the disparity of wealth in the “United” States provides for a society in which everyone will help their neighbor.

The Decline of African American Religion

With Easter Sunday just passing, a slew of resurrection films, documentaries on Jesus Christ, and academic pieces debating the merit of Heaven and Hell on the History Channel have once again inundated our living rooms. I greatly enjoy this time of the year due to the diversity of discussions about Christ, and that of religion in general. However, this post is not one seeking to articulate my beliefs or the beliefs of my friends and colleagues; it is a post offering some reflective thoughts regarding the general nature of religiosity, and its subsequent impact on both the American conservative and liberal.

Growing up in the home of agnostics, Easter carried very little meaning. But, as is the case for many Americans, it provided an opportunity for some discussion on faith. In general, American blacks are highly spiritual and far more conservative than mainstream white culture realizes. However, the notion of black liberalism is encapsulated by societal constructs forcing blacks to eradicate racism, fight classism, and promote cultural views of themselves in the media; it is the latter point that has brought about a false assumption of black ghettoization; hence, black folks killing black folks; promoters of the welfare state; and the perception of dominant sexual beings vis-à-vis Yo MTV Rap, a once popular music video show. Keep in mind, there is a difference between being spiritual and that of religious; I suspect many black brothers and sisters attend church not for the religious value of salvation, but the comfort of the spiritual.

In truth, the majority of black folks are highly conservative. Often time, conservative to a point that contradicts the general gains manifested during the civil rights era. Thus, the church has long been the center of black social, political, and economic discourse between both the academic brother, and that of the common layperson. Yet, there are black folks that have drifted away from mainstream Protestant and Catholic beliefs; in part, this is manifested by a sense of suspicion in the two mainstream religious cannons. I think back to the writings of W.E.B. Du Bois, whose notion of religiosity is prevalent in his writings and artwork, but not always clearly defined. This is one reason there is some debate among Du Bosian scholars about the extent to which he is religious. Being an academic with Du Boisian interest, I find great conflicts in his religious prowess, where much of my confusion centers on his belief in Christ. He references Christ in his writings, at times noting that Christ is a symbol of socialism, and denoting how society should care for each other.

A mistake many make is they assume Karl Marx concocted this whole notion of socialism. But yet, there is evidence that it existed well before Marx. After all, “Jesus preceded Marx historically by nearly 19 centuries.  In addition, Marx built his entire socialist philosophy on the initial premise that God is merely a human delusion, and the second that religion is nothing more than an “opiate of the masses.”  Thus, Du Bois’s framework of Christ as a symbol of socialism clearly reflects his suspicion of the existence of Christ as a divine being.

Though most of us are not at the intellectual level of Du Bois, it is safe to say that black religiosity has declined since the 1970s.  The 21^st century black church is in a dilemma. With the civil rights era over, black folks witnessed the rise of neoconservatives during the late 1970s. Such neoconservatives elected a conservative regime that declared war on black society. Thus, with the rise of hip hop and gangster rap, and the demise of the Black Panthers and the black church, black folks turned to gangs and other practices of socialization. Now, this is not a ubiquitous phenomenon. There is a vibrant black middle class aiming to hold on to the cultural value promulgated in the black church; however, many of the black bourgeoisie look toward the intellectual notion of ideology as a guide. Like Du Bois, the more education blacks gain, the more secular they are in thought. Yet, this secular element is more conservative than what existed during the civil rights era. As noted before, hip-hop and Jesus Christ are not synonymous; however, the two are drawn together through a “sense” of spiritual reconciliation.  Christians contend that the Bible offers hope and understanding to those that are lost. The hip-hop artist also contends that his lyrics offer a “sense” of hope and salvation, much like that of Jesus Christ. Religious historians have given very little attention to the impact religion has had on hip-hop and rap culture.

As noted by Anthony Pinn, this demoting of black churches will not simply result from external pressures” — those opposed to churches for whatever reason(s) — but will also result from internal inconsistencies and conservatism. How can churches address current and pressing issues of discrimination when sexism and homophobia are so very alive within pulpits and pews? How can these churches speak to the integrity of life when in practice and conversation they reflect a deep distrust and discomfort with physical bodies and how they give and receive pleasure? How can churches address in sustainable ways community development when they can’t manage their own budgets?”

Marx and the Church on Gambling

Karl Marx was not a nationalist nor a spiritual person like that of Georg Hegel, who found the Lutheran faith to be the highest form of religion in a man’s life. If one were to look beyond the exile of the Catholic church, during the early stages of the French Revolution, historical analysis would show a vibrant relationship between religion and nationalism. Marx, unlike Hegel, saw religion as a seductive force; it was an element that, as other Marxists scholars have noted, served as another means of exploiting the means of the masses. As noted in his Opium of the People:

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Marx’s thesis, of class consciousness and class conflict, continues to be relevant today. Though Paul Gottfried’s The Strange Death of Marxism addressed the political shift of the left in relation to societal constructs, Marxism continues to be a significant school of thought in a world divided by class, race, gender, and national interest. Academic disciplines continue to focus on conflicts within society as they seek to explain economic interest in a pluralistic society. And yes, I do believe pluralism is a highly ubiquitous ideology that shapes the social and cultural make-up of the American polity.

But, if Marx had his doubts about the seductive force of religion, on the masses, he would contend that exploitation of any type is exploitation. Not only did Marx see forces of economic interest as being dangerous, the church (Catholic and Protestant) also voiced its concerns about agents that exploit. In a recent class discussion on capitalism, I told my macroeconomics class that Marx would be opposed to both a state lottery system, and casinos. As a self-professed liberal, I too do not favor the lottery or casinos. Here is the problem: politicians support legalizing casino gambling and the lottery because they are influenced by special interest. Many claim it will generate revenue for the state and create jobs; in truth, both exploit the poor, lead to more crime, and increase unemployment. The lottery is an indirect tax. I realize that it is a tax one does not have to pay, but if you are low on the socioeconomic scale, it is easy to be seduced by the possibility of cashing in quick for greater earnings.

In addition, education plays a major role in this matter. If you are poor and have a limited education, the seductive forces of the opium of gambling, will be hard to reject. A man works hard all week to earn a pay check, yet that check is not enough to make ends meet. Thus, he seeks to “earn” additional wages by handing that check over to a casino with the hope of getting rich. Casinos represents the bourgeoisie’s efforts at exploiting the poor. Once that hardworking man surrenders that check, he is granted a credit card to buy alcohol, rent a room, have dinner, and gamble with money he does not have. In the end, he leaves the casino in debt.

This is not an unusual predicament of classic exploitation. Spend time in a poor black inner-city neighborhood. You will see pawn shops, liquor stores, and porn shops. All of which are owned by the same class of people who own casinos and lobby politicians to legislate a state lottery. Their justification: lottery dollars will be used to improve the education of blacks in the inner-city. Special interests always look to states like Georgia and Mississippi as a reason for why it works. I am not convinced. The church is not convinced, as noted by John McArthur, who outlines the sins of gambling here. My two favorite points are 1.) it preys on the weak and 2.) it is part of the sin of materialism. Marx would draw this exact conclusion, too.

I do not think this is an ideological matter; I was a bit shocked that many of my students disagreed with me. They argued that it is a choice. In a society that is made up of freedoms and economic expansion, people have the right to enhance their earnings…be it the casino owner or the uninformed poor person looking to improve his lifestyle. They have the right to hold such a position. It is not my job to change my student’s minds; however, it is my job to present the historical evidence that proves otherwise.

Liberalism and The Constitution

While driving to campus yesterday, I came across a car with the above bumper sticker; I find it interesting seeing that many Americans do not understand the term liberal. They equate it to the wrong things. Often, many Americans confuse themselves when discussing matters of ideology.  In truth, if we draw back to the days when Edmund Burke was writing about the French and American Revolution, we might see that the philosophical mentality of conservatives has not changed, unless you are a compassionate conservative.  Case in point: Moving beyond Burke, one finds that Bernard Bosanquet, and more modern conservatives holding a position of rugged individualism. Hence, governmental help will hurt people of the more affluent collective; the poorer collective will not be helped.

In essence, the historical framing by early Atlantic thinkers shaped the modern conservative mind. Thus, many conservatives believe there were people who were better than other people and who, therefore, should be honored more by society. This was clearly an elite mentality. There were liberals that also held such a position. Trust me, I know a few of them. According to Jay Sigler’s The Conservative Tradition in American Thought, “The conservative accepts as natural the differences which separate men. Class, intelligence, nationality, and race make men different.” In essence, there is an elite mentality in that not all men are created equal. There are the haves and have nots. As I have noted before regarding the Framers of the US Constitutions, they were moved by the liberalism of 18^th century political and intellectual thought. However, they were economic conservatives. Richard Hofstadter wrote about economic elitism. He described the Framers as men who created an oligarchy via the Constitution as an instrument to protect their wealth and status; he questioned the democratic nature of the Founders and the Constitution. Moreover, he discussed history as an entity protected by the very men who used it to enhance their status.

Liberalism is a very modern concoction. Sure, we can debate the 18^th century enlightenment and discuss the age of reason, but that would be a bit of a farce, too. The rights of women were greatly oppressed. The needs of the poor were still ignored. And the Atlantic world witnessed the rise of neo-racism, a construct that unfolded due to capitalism and the exploitation by the industrial bourgeoisie. According to basic elements of liberalism, liberals are invested in the righteousness and just order of society. Thus, liberalism today can be characterized as follows:

• Having a tendency to favor change, especially change that promotes the rights individuals. Liberal have been the greatest change agents regarding matters such as racism, sexism, classism, etc.
• Liberals believe in human reason. This is a reason why so many, including myself, are opposed to the death penalty. Liberals realize that there are societal forces in place that serve as agents of stagnation. Moreover, such stagnation allows some to gain greater wealth, while others exist in cyclical poverty.
• Favor individual freedom such as the rights of Muslims to construct a Masque. Now, this goes both ways. Case in point: I favor Muslims having a Mosque in NYC just as much as I favor the KKK’s right to assemble and look like fools. It is the reality of the Bill of Rights.
• Though liberals can be a bit ambivalent regarding human nature, they tend to be much more optimistic than conservatives. Just watch Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio.

So, when I see bumper stickers such as the one above, I question the full understanding of those that display such an item. Liberals have faith in a just system. This system is one in which all members of a given society make up an entity called government. This government’s job is to help those that need help. Once people have reached a point of rescue, they naturally seek self progress. This is a natural function of humanity. Maslow calls this the human will.

Note the debate from the film With Honors. In this classic scene, a homeless man debunks a Harvard political scientist on the meaning of liberalism and the true functionality of the Framers and their Constitution. Of course, this piece contradicts Hofstadter’s point above about elitism.

What People Fear…

I came across this statement from one of my favorite undergraduate professors. As noted below, it was made by Harding University’s first president.  He stated:

All progress of truth – scientific truth, political truth, or religious truth – all truth – has depended on free speech and progressive teachers who were not afraid to teach their honest convictions.” – J.N. Armstrong

Harding, like a number of conservative institutions, has a particular right of center point of view. I guess I love this because it was made by a “highly” conservative university leader. Moreover, though I am questioned less of late for my ideological and intellectual beliefs, there are still a small few that fear my mind. Thus, the notion of a Christian teacher being open-minded about intellectual and political arguments can be a tough pill for some. I am fortunate that this is not an issue on my campus, nor among my students. The ability to love free thought and the diversity of thought reflects the true identity of a secure person. I say this only to say this: People fear what they cannot understand, or what they have closed their minds to understanding. I am fortunate that my students nor my colleagues are this way. They might see things in a different way, but they at least listen.

I Want Some Tea Today.

I am going out and voting for a member of the Tea Party. Let me tell you why you should, too:

1. You get to endorse Sarah Palin, a person who wants to be president but quit her job as governor to make millions.
2. Oh, you also get to endorse Christine O’Donnell, a person that contends she is a Constitutional scholar but does not know the 14th Amendment.
3. Fascism is a left-wing phenomenon. We can thank Jonah Goldberg — with a big assist from Beck — for the popularity of this one, even though Goldberg’s thesis has been demolished and angrily dismissed by academic historians. It’s especially come in handy for Tea Partiers with Obama-as-Hitler signs, who are not impressed by those pointy-headed professorial types anyway. This one is from the Washington Post (May 19th, 2009). For those of you that are educated, you know that being left-wing and fascist are diametrically opposed of each other. Man, more folks need my courses.
4. If you believe that the old days were the good old days, then you should show your support. This is especially true if you are a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
5. Though the Tea Party is more of a movement rather than an actual organized party, we want you to throw away your vote.
6. You can stick it to the Republican base that gives the Tea Party its ideological core.
7. Oh, a vote for Tea is a vote for ____________ (you tell me?)

More Socialism

When you are sitting in your study at home feeling awfully sick, as is the case for me today and yesterday, you ponder why that might be the case; I suspect it has great deal to do with either the intensity of my training, the change in temperature, or the bad political ads being aired. I know it is not the temps because it was 90 degrees yesterday. I suspect the political ads are working me over. I have elected not to endorse any of the candidates for the position of Texas governor. Republican Rick Perry is a cowboy and a good old boy, whereas Democrat Bill White is really not much of a Democrat. Both are airing ads attacking the other for endorsing Obama’s stimulus. Moreover, the two of them have aired attacks against the health care bill which people call “Obama care.” When I hear this, the first thought that comes to mind is uneducated. Okay, maybe that is harsh, but I am only telling the truth. Americans are not big on socialism — so they say. But in truth, the average American knows little about political, historical, and economic institutions.

I love this cartoon below; it says a great deal about the history of American socialism. Take a look at an older post here on the American Socialist Tradition.

We are Still Fighting…

I received an email from a student asking my thoughts on two anti-war movies: Lions for Lambs and the Green Zone; I responded by telling him that I would re-post a piece I once drafted on Lions for Lambs; I think this post pretty much sums up my thoughts on America’s false “sense” of injecting democracy into regions too complex for an American system.

In Lions for Lambs, a movie many conservative pundits call anti-American and typical liberal Hollywood propaganda, links the complexities of class and status to democracy, and addresses an ill fought war on terrorism. I am sure many of you who know me will not be surprised to hear how much I enjoyed this movie. Stephen Malley (played by Robert Redford), a political science instructor at a public research university in California, is portrayed as a liberal idealist who, much like myself, supports the American troops fighting but not the war. For one, it portrays liberal academics as compassionate leftist who are guarding the minds of the young from right-wing political elitist looking to inculcate democratic injustices on the American people.

The most telling part of the movie comes when Redford’s character Malley is visiting with a privilege white upper-class student who has made little of his middle-class privileges. This student who contends that nothing ever changes and politicians are all the same, plays a pejorative role as a bright but spoiled frat boy who is too busy with his social life to care about political, social, and economic matters; it might be an age thing; I deal with a great deal of political, social, and global apathy on my campus from a few, but not all.

In an indirect way, this film does more than address the paradoxical nature of democracy; it touches on matters of race and class. Below is a clip from the movie in which two of Malley’s students are giving a class presentation on the topic of diplomacy and engagement. They address the farce of democracy as it relates to the urban problem of crime and ghettoization. Arian Finch and Michael Pena (Malley’s students) address how much money is being spent engaging in global wars but how little the American government is addressing the problem of social inequalities and education.

The Tea Party

Above: I took this picture while walking Abbey around a neighborhood in Kyle, Texas… just outside of Austin. Democracy is a myth when it comes to a third-party, primarily at the national level. We call voters who vote for said parties throw away voters, or single issue voters. They are usually emotional voters.

I am thinking about joining them; I figure since I am one who easily gives in to ad hoc movements, why not; in truth, I suspect we will see this movement surrender a great deal of momentum come national elections; I am not saying this is a fact, but one of their rock star voices has already given in to celebrity status. I am talking about Sarah Palin. Both political historians and political scientist like to study what is known as “party identification.” In essence, this refers to the voter’s sense of psychological attachment to a party, which is not the same thing as voting for the party in a given election. This concept alone tell us that though the Tea Party has rallied its followers, many of them will not show any kind of  absolute commitment to the Tea Party. Moreover, as noted by Ken Janda of Northwestern University, there tends to be three absolutes of late when it comes to the study of politics:

1. The number of Republicans and Democrats combined exceeds the number of Independents and Third party folk every year.

2. The number of Democrats consistently exceeds that of Republicans.

3. The number of Democrats has shrunk over time, to the benefit of both Republicans and Independents.

(Credit: CBS)

In essence, due to historical trends and party loyalty, I suspect this tea movement will not last. As I mentioned to my classes, when people show up to cast their vote, their loyalty over a period of time will shift away from an  issue and back to their party; I think the rise of the Tea Party works in favor of Democrats. Keep in mind, there will never be a third-party president. Hence, we are really talking about politics at the state and local level.

Exciting Event, Great Parents

It is true, being the academic that I am, I believe it is important for me to hear the point of view of others. Thus, this is why I teach my classes in a Socratic fashion. With that said, the parents of one of my very bright students sent me an invitation to join them for a dinner sponsored by the Liberty Institute.

Eddie:

_____ and I would love for you and your wife to join us on September 21st at 7:00 pm for a banquet we are helping host to familiarize people with the Liberty Institute.  The banquet, which will be held at the Hilton Houston Post Oak, will be a great opportunity to hear about the Liberty Institute. Guided by principles that limit government and promote Judeo-Christian values, Liberty Institute was founded in 1972 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to protect freedoms and strengthen families by impacting the legislature, media, grassroots, and the courts with the truth.

Again, we would enjoy spending the evening with you and your wife, and you never know, there may even be a Cohiba in it for you.  Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

________

It is clear that the Liberty Institute is in ideological opposition to me; however, I think it will be fun to hear what they have to say. And, I get to associate with parents who value those of us such as I who do not teach to their ideological persuasions. I will omit their names, but I am excited to have been invited. The last time I was around them, my wife and I got a bottle of wine from them at the gala.

About the Institute:

Concerned about the direction of the country? Please join us at the Advancing Liberty Tour to learn how Liberty Institute and everyday citizens are standing up to protect America’s founding principles. Kelly Shackelford, constitutional scholar and President of Liberty Institute, will take you behind the scenes in today’s battle for freedom.

You will hear about significant courtroom victories and important legislative action that will impact you and your family; as well as about new American heroes like Hannah Giles, who exposed the corruption of ACORN; and Anne Clutterbuck, Houston City Council member who stood up to atheists when sued for praying, and many more.

This event is completely free of charge. There will be an opportunity to partner with Liberty Institute by making a donation to help further our work of protecting freedoms and strengthening families.

Liberty Institute was founded in 1972 as a 501c3 non-profit organization to protect freedoms and strengthen families by impacting the courts, legislature, grassroots and media with the truth.

WWW.LIBERTYINSTITUTE.ORG

Gender

Outside my campus door, I have on display the above quote noting the meaning of feminism, as it reads: “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” The term feminism in and of itself can be somewhat of a contentious term and ideology. Often times, individuals equate it to radicalism…which it can be, as can terms such as nationalism be used in a dangerous fashion to denote the concept of jingoism. But with feminism, its danger is found in its threat towards traditional institutions. Feminism challenges the basic construct of hegemony in that many institutions are and have been controlled by men. However, women via equal educational and political opportunities have torn down many of the walls constructed by the notion of male hegemony — at least in the western world. This is not the case in other parts of the world in which various religious faiths have been used to justify male supremacy.

I have always been taught that the great thing about liberalism is this: it believes it is wrong to reject individuals access to institutions that will inherently work against their natural rights; some might see proposition 8 this way; it might be the right of all individuals to universal health care; or, the right to an education regardless of socioeconomic status; how about the rights of women to afford child care? Feminism as ideology represents most of the women in my life; I like to think about the laborious hours my mother put herself through just to guarantee that my brother and I had the basics to cope with the challenges of day-to-day living. Furthermore, her plight is one of historical proportions in that she is not only a woman facing the challenges of male hegemony, but a black female from a lower socioeconomic base living in the deep South. She lived in Alabama during the 1960s… Not that all things have changed much since then. Thus, elements such as class, gender, race, and power have a very different meaning to her than say — me. Though my race brings about a particular challenge to other types of dominant institutions in society, my gender offers far more doors. This is an unfortunate reality that many of us are unwilling to discuss; it is simple to talk of progressive women as being feminazis or aggressive animals. But, the day-to-day challenges of women are far too extensive for men, including myself, to comprehend; I teach about feminism in my courses, but I cannot wholly understand its meaning. In Gloria Steinem’s If Men Could menstruate, she offers a unique analogy into the world of women. She ridicules sexism and the silly assumptions men make about the plight of women.

Above: I believe all true students of history and culture should read Simone de Beavoir’s The Second Sex, as noted by the quote on my door.

According to Rosemary Radford Ruether’s Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology,

…traditional Christian theology shapes Christ as the model for a redeemed humanity…one that we have lost through sin and recover through redemption. But Christ as symbol is problematic for feminist theology. The Christological symbols have been used to enforce male dominance, and even if we go back behind masculinist Christology to the praxis of the historical Jesus of the synoptic Gospels, it is questionable whether there is a single model of redeemed humanity fully revealed in the past.

In reading this work for a seminar course I took in graduate school, I understood this point to say that Jesus had both masculine and feminine characteristics, but it has been man who took only the masculine to define the culture of humanity. Though the characteristics of Jesus as it relates to masculinity and femininity is another blog post, one cannot argue that Christians are asked to respect both gender traits defined by the basic notion of the rib of Adam; it is at this point that male hegemony tends to set a course of new rules. Hence, women are to be the care takers of masculinity. They are to cook, clean, please, and behave in a fashionable effort deemed okay by men. I find myself combating this thought among some of the young male students I teach; if their mother is a homemaker and their father treats her as second class…I have found that young men in my courses behave this way. Male students treat my female colleagues differently than they do male teachers; I suspect this is true in other arenas too. The challenge of course is deconstructing this attitude by reminding students that feminism is a Christian virtue; Christ shared both gender characteristics. This is not a bad thing; if teaching male students to be Christ like is the value of teaching at a Christian institution, it is important that Christian educators model this in how they approach the topic of gender history. I am not innocent of what I am writing; it was my mother that asked me to rethink the rap music I used to listen to. Like much of the popular culture music today, it is demeaning to females.

Marc Lamont Hill

I must admit that I am a big Marc Lamont Hill fan, a professor of African-American Studies and Education at Columbia University; he is an intellectual; he has a certain “sense” of vitality and cockiness that I like. Moreover, he is smart and realizes it, especially when dealing with pundits that make various contentions predicated on pure emotions — as was the case the other day by Bill O’Reilly on The factor. Their debate centered around race and politics. And more, it dealt specifically with matters regarding the Tea Party and the New Black Panthers…. Both of these groups deal with complex issues of race, but the Tea Party tends to be more covert than that of the panthers.

Last night’s lead segment featured O’Reilly continuing to air the endless loop of the National Geographic footage of the same Black Panthers yelling the same things about crackers, and questions about why the NAACP wasn’t doing anything about it. O’Reilly thought it was a double standard, but as he often does, he hedged it, “Am I wrong here?”

Marc Lamont Hill had an answer. “Yeah, you’re absolutely wrong here,” he said. The rest of the debate featured comments like “what you’re saying is counter-factual” and “you have wildly unfair and unrealistic, and to some extent, patronizing expectations for the NAACP.”

This was fun too:

O’Reilly: I’m not a smart guy like you.
Hill: I concede that point.

Check out the video here: