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.

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.

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.

The Door(s) of Ideology

Sarah Salinas, a student in my European history class, sent me this above picture a week ago. It shows my door that illustrates a few things about me.  It’s funny that she sent me this, seeing that I have been recently thinking about how one’s office, office door, and class room reflects a teacher’s perspective towards politics, race, gender, religion, and the environment. I have everything from a post card of Frida Kahlo’s depiction of Marx and Trotsky, to a quote by Ralph Ellison depicting race in America. Below, I used to have a sign stating that I miss Bill…but that was removed after the 2008 November elections  And, there is my environmental note, a reminder to me as I approach the copy room to be wise and double side each handout.  Although I actively recycle, I too am responsible for the death of trees. Furthermore, as many of my students know, I am a pacifist; I guess I should have been at the Kellogg-Briand Pact meeting in which the great powers denounced war as an instrument. But there are the fun things too. Case in point: My department chair placed a “I Heart Blogging” sticker on my window, just beside my Sierra Club sticker. I am no hippie, but it is fun to play one from time to time. Across the hall, my colleague and HCHS government teacher — Suzan Phenicie, has a sign posted that notes the 1988 election of Republican George H.W. Bush.

In his article, The Office Doors of the North American Professor, James Lang states that:

We have often noticed, as we stroll down the hallways of academic buildings, how the doors of the faculty beckon to us — with whispers and insinuations, exhortations and declamations, jeers and jests — via a motley collection of decorations: cartoons, articles, quotations, posters, advertisements, photographs, and artwork.

What motivates such postings by that increasingly threatened species, the North American professor? How do those office doors reflect upon the professors or the disciplines in which they study and teach? To whom are the collections of postings addressed?….Despite the plausible explanation, we decided not to hang onto that hypothesis in the face of patchy evidence. We shifted instead to the more mundane possibility that office doors simply reflect the personalities of the faculty members. During the height of the recent battles with Iraq, a junior historian posted a new body count on his door every day, listing the total number of Americans and Iraqis killed. His colleague two floors up, an arch-conservative junior theologian, still has posted on his door a full-page, color newspaper picture of workers hoisting an American flag in the rubble of the World Trade Center. “Remember,” intones the headline. Above that image, an article proclaims: “Bush to lead National Day of Prayer.”

Although there is a major shift to keep politics and ideology out of the classroom, I do believe there is a healthy place for it. As is the case in the courses I teach, I do my best to construct a course that is as objective as possible; however, to assume that absolute objectivity is possible is silly. Thus, in promoting a discussion about various schools of thought as it relates to the historiography or recent trends of thought, I find it important that students be placed in a position with some acquired knowledge to challenge me and that of others. I realize the scope and extent of my knowledge is extensive, but I do believe it is important for students to use what has framed their political socialization to offer an opinion. The challenge comes when we offer our opinions and judgments about others who are absent from the discussion. This is a difficult thing for many to understand. David Horowitz, an academic and neoconservative who was once a member of the New Left, constructed what he calls the Student Academic Bill of Rights; it outlines eight basic points that should be followed by teachers. Let me say that I do agree with Horowitz here, but disagree with his claim that a teacher’s own politics, beliefs, and norms have no place in the classroom. That defies the notion of political socialization; it is inherently a natural part of all people. Now, such faculty views should never be used to indoctrinate nor punish a student that has a different viewpoint.

As noted here, his points state:

All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.

1. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.
2. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.
3. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.
4. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.
5. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.
6. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.
7. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.

The Ideology of the Court

One element consistent of the political processes since the Warren court is the cultural wars. This ideological conflict really came to prominence during the conservative vs. liberal debates regarding gender, race, and religion in the 1920s. Moreover, the same arguments hold true for the decade of the 1950s and the 1980s. With the retirement of Justice Stevens from the Court, both the left and the right have armed themselves for conflict; I am not sure why.

If the Court is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of the Constitution, then why did the Framers construct a system that allows a partisan official of ideological disposition to make such a selection? I would hope that my students would answer this question by stating that during the construction of the Constitution, there “technically” were no political parties; however, even that answer would not be wholly sufficient, seeing that the process of drafting the Constitution was in and of itself an ideological conflict between Federalist and Anti-Federalist. This division shaped much of the political conflicts throughout the 1790s.

So, I ask the question, why go to arms over a presidential appointment to the Court? According to the Constitution:

The power to appoint Justices belongs to the President under the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). The “advice and
consent” of the Senate is required for any Supreme Court appointment. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts
hearings to question nominees and determine their suitability. Thereafter, the whole Senate considers the nomination; a
simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. In some instances, the Senate may defeat a nominee
by failing to take a final vote on the nominee, rather than by explicit rejection. For example, the minority may filibuster
a nominee, indefinitely prolonging debate and refusing to permit a vote.

Thus, since this is the case, the Framers constructed a system in which an ideological figure has the power to appoint a person to uphold the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, but others who might not hold that position can check his/her powers to appoint.

I am hoping the president will appease the base that elected him by selecting Diane Wood to the bench; I like the fact that she is a woman, but I also like that she holds the intellectual understanding that the Constitution is a document for all Americans. It is important that groups that hold their own ideological positions do not work against that of others. I am a fan of the Bill of Rights and believe they are not in place to deny the rights of Americans, but to protect those rights. And yes, that means the rights of religious fundamentalist or those who are in the KKK; we cannot pick here.

The United States is a plural society. The joy of pluralism is that it offers an array of diverse views. A Muslim should have the same rights as that of a Christian, as noted in the 1st Amendment. A justice should be one that looks to uphold all aspects of the Bill of Rights. If Obama fails to select Wood to the Court, many will see him as a weak president.

Political Beliefs

Those of you who are like me, understand the significance of the above political spectrum. I teach this in all of my courses. Moreover, one of the key components to fully understanding this spectrum is understanding the role of pluralism in the American polity. In pluralism, the polity for which we all are a part of is made up of competing fashions in which not one is strong enough to dominate. Advocates such as my self for this system contends  that it allows for diverse views. Thus, being a self-subscribed advocate of liberalism, I believe that it is paramount that views and constructs are not censored… even those that are not popular. However, critics of pluralism usually make two arguments:

1. They argue that pluralism represents a cynical view towards values with the exception of manipulating power. According to such, supporters of pluralism are chiefly concerned with their view(s) being most reflected in society.
2. They also believe this form of liberalism is too dogmatic and not as progressive as once believed.

The reality of course is that the vast majority of Americans are liberal. Thus, they land to the left of center. However, some might contend that nationalism is a threat to liberalism in that it espouses a notion of right-wing contention in which freedom of thought, views, and expression are deemed anti-state. Nation states such as Iran and Fascist Germany are the best examples in that the former believes in a state religion, whereas the latter supports state glory. I do think that most Americans see nationalism as good, however, there is much danger in the ideological spectrum above when one is too nationalistic (jingoism) and loyal to the state; he or she shifts too far to the right and desires a “sense” of uniformity in that there should be a society of “absolute” shared values. People will disagree with me here, but even within the confines of a nation-state, there cannot be a “sense” of shared values if pluralism is valued. It is safe to say that I know or have encountered members that land on each of the above ideological points charted, with the exception of an anarchist.

I do not believe anarchy exists. Of late, two students of mine — Reid Bishop and Emma Brown have taken up the cause of exploring the extent to which Thoreau was an anarchist in his values and teachings. According to Bishop, “Thoreau was a theoretical anarchist but not a pragmatic one.” Bishop got this one right in that the notion of being an anarchist is close to impossible. Though Thoreau and other 19th century transcendentalist attempted to be pragmatic, the inevitability of such failed due a human desire for political organization and structure.

As for conservatives, those that claim to be such are so because they believe the home, family, and religion should be at the core of all values. This means there is a place for women which is in the home, a strong opposition to abortion, and support for required prayer in schools, opposition to the teaching of sex education in schools as well as evolution. Conservatives hold to such social views but tend to hold even stronger views on political and economic issues, too. Case in point: A nation should hold to having a large and dominant military, and thus should use force if deemed necessary. Moreover, action against ideologies deemed “un-American” should be addressed. Though much of this seems good, however, it does counter pluralism in that there is a sizable population of Americans that see little value in using war as an instrument when diplomacy is good. Or, the values of religious faith dictating the private lives of individuals. Here, pluralism contends that acts of gay marriage or abortion are 9th amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution.Those in opposition to matters such as gay marriage will tell you that they are conservative in their opposition to this institution, but liberal in that they do not want to see the Constitution amended to define marriage. There is a fear social conservatives hold in that the government should not legislate a 9th amendment issue. Social conservatives do find value in the 10th amendment as a body to legislate such acts. Again, case in point: During the election of 2004, the state of Texas voted via referendum to define marriage between a man and a woman in Texas, but many of those people might not do so at the national level. Keep in mind I am speaking in the form of conjecture here.

After reading the latter paragraph, many might state that most Americans are not liberal but conservative; I say “NO” in that many Americans favor the right for one to believe in God or not without the state dictating a belief as found in Iran or the former USSR. Furthermore, the right to vote (or not), speech, press, gather, and expression are values deemed liberal but can be expressed differently. Liberals, including myself, believe people should be helped if needed so that they can live a more productive life and reach their potential. This help, through the operation of the government, promotes the goal of an organized polity.

Texas: The Unenlightened State

The state of Texas has been guided by a system of poor leadership and what I call a good ‘ole boy network as it relates to its hill billy notion of justice; I have only blogged about my thoughts towards the death penalty once before, but it is safe to say I am beyond angry with Gov. Rick Perry. As a pacifist and a Christian, I see no purpose in the execution of another person. The most sacred thing that we all possess is life; it is not up to us to decide who should live and who should be executed. It is my contention that if one believes in God, one should also believe that he holds all final calls. For years I have been a self-proclaimed social and economic liberal regarding the death penalty. I, just like so many people, have known innocent victims of crime. I am not an apologists for those who have committed horrible acts of crime: murder being the worst seeing that it violates one’s natural rights. Humans do not have the right to take such a life without it being a “just” cause. But when such an act occurs, I am not sure society gains by executing the guilty. The problem with the death penalty is that it does not deter crime. Furthermore, those that commit such crimes tend to come from lower socio economic groups. English intellectual John Stuart Mill stated that “if the death penalty worked, people would not pick pockets while observing a public hanging during the 19th century.” I have also noticed that blacks and the poor are executed at a disproportionate rate. I have been reading scripture looking for answers to whether subjects of a state should support the death penalty.

As of today, the state of Texas continued its pathetic cowboy and unenlightened image by executing another person.

HUNTSVILLE, Texas — Texas Gov. Rick Perry may have to decide whether a death row inmate lives or dies.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, in a rare ruling, has recommended that Robert Lee Thompson’s death sentence be commuted to life in prison. The 34-year-old Thompson is set for lethal injection Thursday evening for his part in the fatal shooting of a Houston convenience store clerk. He was not the triggerman when Mansoor Bhai Rahim Mohammed was gunned down 13 years ago during a robbery. But he was convicted under the Texas law of parties, which made him equally culpable for the slaying.The shooter, Sammy Butler, received life in prison. Thompson, tried separately, got death.

Perry is not required to follow the board’s recommendation.

As stated below in Romans 13 1 – 5, I do believe that we interpret certain verses too literally regarding the death penalty:

Paul instructs Christians to submit themselves to the authority of the state, because “The authorities that exist have been established by God.” Referring to the authorities, Paul writes in Verse 4: “For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” The reference to “sword” might be interpreted literally (to refer to capital punishment) or symbolically (to refer to the power of the state to punish wrongdoers).

For those that follow scripture, I have yet to find anything that substantiates the execution of a person that commits a wrong; in the teachings if Christ, such behavior did not transpire.

Another example found in John chapter 8 might be:

…This famous passage describes an adulteress who was scheduled for stoning. Jesus told her executioners He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. These verses have often been quoted to indicate Jesus’ opposition to the death penalty.

According to Christianity Today, white evangelical Christians are the biggest supporters of the death penalty, though a number have become bothered by the “proportion” of blacks receiving such execution.

While the issue before the Supreme Court is narrow, the national mood on capital punishment itself seems to be shifting. New Jersey became the 14th state to outlaw executions in December 2007. And a Pew Forum poll taken last August found that public support for capital punishment has dropped to 62 percent from a high of 80 percent in 1994. White evangelicals are still the death penalty’s strongest supporters, with 74 percent approval, but that is down from 82 percent in 1996. Some Christians have been disturbed by the disproportionate number of poor and African-American prisoners on death row, said John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a conservative civil liberties organization.

Learning from the Quakers: Carson on being a Pacifist

My United States history sections have been discussing the early formation of the American colonies and how each one developed its own particular identity. Our discussion today on the formation and settlement of Pennsylvania allowed us to discuss Quaker theology. In doing so, we addressed their role as pacifist. In colonial America, enclaves of Quakers existed in Rhode Island, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and western New Jersey. In Pennsylvania, founded by William Penn as a refuge for Quakers and as a “holy experiment” in religious toleration, Friends maintained an absolute majority in the assembly until 1755 and remained a potent force until the American Revolution. Between 1754 and 1776, Friends throughout America strengthened their commitment to pacifism and began to denounce slavery. After the Revolution, Friends concentrated on a wide variety of reform activities: Indian rights, prison reform, temperance, abolition, freedmen’s rights, education, and the women’s movement. Though I wholly support all but temperance here, the Quakers have had a substantial influence in the development of American culture.

Dating back to my 9th grade year in high school when the United States invaded Iraq, I have long contemplated adopting a pacifist view towards war; however, it was not until the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 that I fully adopted a pacifist view on war. When I think about this from a political and philosophical view, I recall a discussion on the “Just War” doctrine and pacifism in one of my political science courses during my undergraduate years. Thomas Aquinas stated that there are rules to a just war and thus listed such qualifications:

1. It has to be a defensive war or a just cause.
2. There must be no selfish intentions of a particular state.
3. Clear authorization and order.
4. War is the result of failed diplomacy…. It is necessitated as a last result. Hence, this is the philosophy that many liberals subscribe to.
5. There are no unnecessary attacks, particular on the innocent or the civilian population.
6. There must be a purpose between the destruction of war and reason for correction.
7. There must be a reasonable chance for success.

Though Aquinas set out a set of laws for the participation of Christians in war, I subscribe to Jesus Christ’s notion that one cannot have his/her cake and eat it too. Hence, one cannot do as Christ did and turn the other cheek all the while engaged in a conflict or support a state that engages in conflicts that are clearly questionable.

Howard Zinn stated it all too well when he made this statement in his A People’s History of the United States:

It remains to be seen how many people in our time will make that journey from war to nonviolent action against war. It is the great challenge or our time: How to achieve justice, with struggle, but without war.

Just A Thought: President Carson

Barack Obama: FDR or Clinton? by Alejandro Penafiel

The following piece was written by Alejandro Penafiel, a friend and former HCHS student of mine. Alejandro is a third year student at American University in Washington D.C. Moreover, he spent his first semester of college interning for the Republican Party at its national head office working for Senator John McCain. Alejandro is one of only three students that I have taught in four different Advanced Placement courses. He has submitted articles to the Professor in the past.

As I have been watching Obama’s transition and his first few weeks in office, I have been asking myself this question and trying to decide if he has more in common FDR or Bill Clinton? I got this idea from talking to Carson about the Time cover of Obama stylized as FDR. I am sure he will be kind enough to include the photo with this post. While he has displayed much in common with both his Democratic predecessors, I think he fits much better in the Clinton mold.

What gave me the most trouble in coming to this conclusion is the fact that all three have a great deal in common. They all came after republican administrations during a time of recession and public outcry, as well as with a great deal of popularity. However, what make me tip Obama towards Bill are his centrist tendencies and his pragmatic governing philosophy. Throughout the campaign Obama has consistently shown that he is highly flexible in handling issues and crises, and thus not overly attached to strict ideology. For example, his posturing on NAFTA during the primaries and more recently, his inclusion of Sec. Robert Gates in the new cabinet both show his understanding of the need to be pragmatic in order to get the results he wants. I think the strongest case can be made off his governing philosophy, but you can also see that his administration is filled with Clinton alums. Take into account that Hillary is his foreign minister, which speaks volumes on the similarity of their approach to government policy. This can also be seen with his economic policy and the rise of Larry Summers as Obama’s chief macroeconomic policy advisor. If you take a look at the press releases coming out of the White House regarding the intent and effects of the proposed stimulus package, they match up almost entirely to what Summers has said publicly. I guess the administration is a better fit than Harvard. Maybe this keeps him from talking about social issues that he is “oh so good” at doing. Obama is enacting standard counter-cyclical fiscal policy in order to fight the contraction in the economy.

It is still far too early to say anything lasting about his legacy, and it is impossible to put any two presidents in the exact same category. The only useful part of this exercise, besides the fact that it is fun to talk about, is that it helps create a frame of reference to study his presidency. While I hope he does take after Clinton, the true test will come a few years later when the time comes to apply the flip side of Keynesian fiscal policy rules. It is always much easier and popular to spend more money. The stimulus will get passed. It has to, and everyone knows it. The hard part will be to start cutting spending and moving to balance the budget as the economy begins its expansionary cycle.

Aggressive Politics

 

AP – President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration’s ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information…  an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century. Obama’s executive order, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious Bush policies, was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes. (from the AP)

The American Socialist Tradition

Above: Recent Issue of Time. Obama as FDR.

In Obama’s The Audacity of Hope, he noted his philosophical contention by addressing his favor for FDR’s New Deal — the birth of American Socialism and the death of America’s puritanical notion of Rugged Individualism. Modern sociologists and economic theorist Max Weber wrote in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, that the entrepreneurial spirit and advancement of capitalism were directly linked to religion and not the material stages promulgated by Karl Marx. Hence, it was the teachings of religious values and ideals that allowed capitalism to flourish. It was Republican president Herbert Hoover that first used this phraseology in his efforts to keep the American economy from emulating the socialist economies of Europe; in essence, he as well as the conservative nature of American society saw a BEST society as one that was extrapolated from the premise of the individual: Hard work allowed the formation and the spirit of a capitalistic democratic society to advance. Moreover, this state of order juxtaposed to Weber’s Thesis permited the moral and responsible behavior of a society.

However, the falsity of the work ethic notion and capitalism as viewed by society was that individuals sin; individuals sought wealth and material goods feared by Marx and the utilitarians of the 19th century. Both witnessed the progress of the industrial bourgeoisie in industrial states where governments elected to be absent. In 19th century America, according to Democratic Socialist of America (DSA):

Several hundred thousand American workers of the Knights of Labor, the American Federation of Labor, and socialist and anarchist groups all demonstrated for the Eight Hour Day. It was the center of a world-wide movement for shorter working hours. Even the song lyrics of the American movement, “Eight hours for work/eight hours for sleep/eight hours for what we will,” argued for a “natural” pace of life in tune with the seasons, rather than the long hours and miserable conditions imposed by the capitalists.

Tension escalated well before the panic of 1929; America allowed rugged individualism and a conservatism to shape a culture with little remorse. Thanks to John Maynard Keynes’ Keynesian policy, the United States became a transformative state and permitted government injections (or stimulus) to move the economy. This gave birth to our modern economic system. Sure, it was Alexander Hamilton’s policies in the establishment of our economic system that created our current system; but in essence, the United States evolved into a hybrid state of capitalism and socialism. One does not function without the other. This is why Obama must continue the New Deal of FDR: American Socialism.

The Black Bourgeoisie and Uncle Tom

I posted this a while back but thought after recent developments it would be of interest to jump start this conversation. A very good friend of mine contends that I am a bit confusing in that I am a conservative dresser, teach in a conservative school (my 2nd one), and address life outside of academic and social matters in a conservative way; yet, my intellectual appeal is that of a liberal frustrated by de facto constructs of the privileged who mask social and economic matters from a simplistic point of view. But, as I note below — race is not the factor so much as class. The contention that blacks are liberal is no longer true. However, black academic types regardless of income tend to stay towards the left on social and economic issues. Below I address this matter and that of race and privilege as it relates to my lower class up bringing, as well as my white middle class educational experience ala attending a private school on nothing but aid.

E. Franklin Frazier’s Black Bourgeoisie was more prophetic than many realized. Frazier, who addressed the burgeoning black middle class, expressed concern about the intra-class conflict vis-a-vis socioeconomic status of black folks. Frazier notes that the black middle class was in a rush by the 1960s to assimilate. During the Harlem Renaissance, even W.E.B. Du Bois “strategically included white judges on panels for their black literary competitions, in hopes that white approval would add luster to black achievements.” This shift that occurred was not a mass or universal one. The black middle class was still small and would not be catapulted until after the advent of Affirmative Action.

The debate over true liberalism among blacks still exist. I have found the upper black middle class to be far more conservative and less active towards civil rights and social policy of late. I am concerned that the black bourgeoisie is willing to shift its focus away from the liberalism that put them in their position for racial acceptance. I believe integration is vital to a liberal society as noted by my neighborhood, friends, and place of employment; however, I do not think the black middle class should play the conservative card that carries with it values, attitudes, and behaviors that do not represent progress for all minority groups. Sure 90% of blacks vote in a solid block for the Democratic Party, but that block is not as tight as it used to be.

Here are a few observations about the thinking of the black middle class:

1. Homophobia and anti-gay attitudes are pervasive as seen by the fact that many black Americans are anti-gay marriage
2. Affirmative action policies, though it helped many ascend to middle class status, are no longer needed
3. Black politicians are needed to protect the economic status of the black middle class, not to speak about social justice
4. Black liberals have no focus and can no longer speak for the burgeoning black middle class
5. Intra racism has long been the standard among blacks of different shades of blackness
6. Academic underachievement is the result of the black home, not institutional problems such as racism dating back to Jim Crow
7. Poverty is a problem that should be addressed by local communities and not the federal government ala taxes and welfar

As for Uncle Tom, I found myself reading a few chapters in Dinesh D’ Souza’s book The End of Racism. According to the book’s cover,

D’Souza challenges deeply held orthodoxies about race and racism in America. Was slavery a racist institution? Is America a racist society? Is Eurocentrism a racist concept? Can African Americans be racist? D’Souza argues that the liberal crusade against racism is detrimental to both blacks and whites, and that our next step must be to eliminate race as the basis for identity and public policy.

D’Souza, from what little I have read of this book, argues against not only affirmative action, but social and economic reforms that have been used to help poor minorities. In chapter 12 of the book, he discusses what is often termed the Uncle Tom dilemma. If you were to ask any black person about the term Uncle Tom, he or she depending on education is likely to say that an Uncle Tom is a black person who acts white. Furthermore, this person might claim to evidence that a black person who speaks well is only doing so because he/she has a desire to be just like white folks. It has been a long time since I have been called an Uncle Tom. I grew up in a rough black neighborhood for a while, but was given an opportunity to attend a private school with practically an all white demographic. Often I played the language card so that I would not lose any of my friends; it was easy to use poor grammar when speaking due to my audience outside of my all white private school confines. However, I did not fool people. It was clear that I did not fit in at home or at times on campus. I think this is why smart black students pretend to be dumb. They do it out of fear of being rejected by their black peers.

It is very odd if not unheard of to hear a white person call a black person an Uncle Tom. The last time I was called this term, I politely asked that person if he had ever read the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin. After he said no, I went on to give him a brief lecture on the work I read back in middle school: Essentially, a white woman named Harriet Beecher Stowe took it upon herself to research the treatment and condition of southern blacks. While doing so, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was passed; it required northerners to return all runaway slaves to their masters. Keep in mind that blacks were nothing more than property, though the Constitution did not define blacks in this category until the 1857 Dread Scott case.

In her work, she wrote about a slave named Tom who was so trusted by his master, that he was often sent on long independent trips to conduct business. Modern day black folks became very critical of Stowe’s character Tom. Why would a black man who was nothing more than a slave be so loyal to his white master? Some speculate that Tom desired to transform himself into a better place; a white place where he was like those who abused other blacks. By 1960 the term Uncle Tom had a place among the vanguard of black intellectuals. By this point, with the civil rights movement underway, and a number of blacks graduating from historically black colleges, there was no longer a need to be like white people. Blacks proved that they were far superior. Thus, it is here that we see the heightened sense of black on black racism. As is the case today, black folks are expected to serve their own communities. People such as myself are often questioned for working in a place that does not serve the needs of the black community. Black people who prefer white lawyers, white bankers, white dentists are seen as Uncle Toms. Dating back to the days of Booker T. Washington, he argued that if black people do not visit and help black professionals, who will.

With the black bourgeoisie emerging from the status of proletarian, you find more and more black people crossing the racial divide. This does not mean the end of racism is here. D’Souza is actually promulgating racism by claiming that we can move toward a color blind society. I find such a statement to be racist.

Yes We Can Mr. President!!!

Nobama What?

Shall we call him President Obama? If we asked the estimated 200,000 Europeans that showed up to hear Obama’s speech yesterday in Berlin, I am sure many would say yes. Obama mania has clearly arrived in Europe. On my way to a United States history seminar at Rice University for our last meeting with Bill Shelton, professor of the Trinity Valley School in Fort Worth, I made an unusual coffee run to Starbucks where I picked up a copy of today’s The New York Times. Pictured on the front cover was Obama in front of 200,000 Europeans. The article entitled Obama Gets Europe’s Ear paints a picture of a man who might bring hope and stability to a world in which the United States has alienated. Steven Erlanger states in his piece that

…making a stop in London on his way to Russia, the response of many Europeans to his potential presidency has been gratifying — emotional, responsive, replete with the sense of hope he seeks to engender about a more flexible, less ideological America.

I am sure many Americans too are ready to move past W’s cowboy act and once again engage in more dialogue with other European and non-European actors. As I stated in an earlier blog piece, after reading Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope, I concluded that he might be the new hero for the Democratic Party. Democrats have been searching for a new person to champion liberalism since Bill Clinton was forced to abandon some of his liberal policies. This is not an easy task, especially after the recent congressional election that saw a number of democrats campaign on a moderate platform. I believe they found that champion in Obama.

In his Berlin speech, Obama stated: “will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law.” It appears that Europeans have a great deal of respect for this most articulate candidate. Obama must be careful not to alienate those of us who are true liberals by moving too far to the center. Of course, that is usaully what occurs in general elections. Again, Obama is no conservative as noted by many of his ideological views… many I embrace:

• He supports abortion; in his mind, he finds the idea of the government limiting one’s reproductive rights to be a violation of liberalism. He suggests that the government should work harder to provide and make such access to the poor more available. He does a nice job selling this point by comparing the needs of the many to that of the few.
• Welfare needs to be re-evaluated (note: Bill Clinton signed legislation in 1996 giving states greater control of welfare. I sensed that Obama would like to see the federal government take back some of that power).
• It is not the role of government to determine who a person should love (gay marriage).
• With a growing deficit, it is imperative that the government increase revenue by raising taxes.

Democracy: Truth or Farce part III

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 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.

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.

Watch the clip below as Finch and Pena present their argument about the farce of democracy. At the end of their presentation, their classmates ridicule them for talking the talk but not walking the walk. What you will not see in this clip is that both of them place a transparency of their orders to report to military duty. Malley is shocked and disappointed that two of his hardworking students elected to skip graduate school and the econonimc opportunities that come with it for an unjust war.

Here is a brief movie review (see rest of review here):

And in the final path, two of Malley’s former students, Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) are in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban in Irving’s masterminded offensive. Things aren’t going well for them – the intelligence reports are once again fouled – and both solders find themselves stranded in very hostile territory. Their commander Lt. Col. Falco (Peter Berg) is deeply troubled by the situation and tries everything in his power to rescue them. The abandoned men, while waiting for help, take the time to remember how they got in this situation and ultimately realize that they’ve got to rely on their own abilities if they are to survive. You can’t count on the government for anything. And while this was meant as a way to tie together the pieces of the movie into a nice bundle, it all seemed strangely staged. More displeasing to me was the use of this segment as a launching pad to find fault with our military.

Obviously, from a conservative standpoint, I would have liked to see more equal representation for the right. Irving tries to make his case, but writer Matthew Michael Carnahan, ends up making him into a war monger. I especially liked the added touch of having a plaque on his wall that read: If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness. However, Lions for Lambs does raise a few thought provoking questions while reiterating the tried and true Bush bashing that we’ve been privy to for the past few years. No matter the agenda, it’s worth a view and a subsequent talk around the water cooler at the job. I’m sure that’s music to the ears of the political forces that helped shape and release this movie.

Politics by the Numbers

A recent poll illustrated that George W. Bush’s approval rating is at 33% a year before the November elections. Moreover, that same poll noted that 75% of Americans wanted him out of office. This is an interesting number when you compare it to those of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. At the mark a year before elections, 55% of the population wanted Reagan out of office while just 47% of Americans wanted Bill out; strategists have been paying close attention to single women as the ’08 campaign emerges. For the first time in our nation’s political history, single women have a slight advantage over married women. This number is important because recent statistics that measure political socialization tells us that single women are more liberal, and tend to favor the Democratic Party, unlike their sex counterpart. You may recall that during the ’04 campaign Republicans made a big push to recruit soccer moms, who traditionally speaking favored traditional values, conservative social policies, and placed a greater emphasis on the family.

I suspect in the next few weeks, if you have yet to see it, a series of commercials will be airing to recruit single women. I imagine the commercials will target the beauty of being a bright independent woman who has made great gains socially and professionally. Because lower class women turn out at the polls in far fewer numbers in comparison to their middle class counterpart, those adds will probably place some normative value on these characteristics: professional class lesbian women, CEOs, academics, etc.

“Proof” that Liberals are Smart, Conservatives are Dumb

In the past, having a college education tended to be associated with voting for Republicans; in recent years, however, this correlation has become weaker; in particular, individuals with a postgraduate education — more than a bachlor’s degree — have become increasingly Democratic — as well as liberal. Also, a higher percentage of voters with only a high school education voted Republican in 2000 and in 2004. In essence, as I have told many of my students, the more education one attains — the more liberal one tends to be.

Liberals are generally convinced that they are smarter than conservatives. Indeed, conservatives treat the term “intellectual” with contempt. But, is there any basis to believe that Liberals are right?

A study published in Nature Neuroscience measured brain activity on Liberals and Conservatives and “found” that “the anterior cingulate cortex (AAC) was twice as active in liberals than in conservatives.” AKA, Liberals were more mentally pliable than Conservatives.

I’d be wary of extrapolating this out too far. But, it certainly raises interesting questions about how brains develop, and what effects certain kinds of stimuli (of a Liberal bent?) have on ones cognitive abilities.

h/t: saij

Cornel West: To Be A Leftist in the 21st Century

I have attended two conferences that presented Cornel West as its key note speaker. Most recently, the African American Studies department at the University of Houston invited him as a speaker and public intellectual. West promulgates the need for leftist ideology in the 21st century as a juxtaposed construct to: religion, corporate greed, youth, white supremacy, and global patriarchy.

Furthermore, West addresses the weakness of American democracy as an enlightened construct that ushered in a capitalist system that transformed Atlantic history by giving birth to white supremacy. Thus the creation of neo-racism and neo-slavery via democracy and capitalism set the stage for black oppression circa 1776 to 1963. West, as I have stated here before, dismisses the birth of America as this great liberal construct vis-a-vis 18th century European progress. Watch West (see video clip) address the issue of being a leftist and listen to how he links the historical to the present. Although not directly, listen to how West differentiates between historical and present liberalism and leftism.

Blog Comment Takes Center Court

I wrote a blog piece earlier in the year entitled “Do Conservatives Fear Liberal Thinkers?” I have received and continue to receive e-mails on this. I most recently read a posted comment in which the author addresses a few of my questions as seen below. My blog article can also be found published at the Black Independent, which I suspect is a conservative black news outlet.

I have answers to your questions regarding:

1. How can a poor person endorse or favor fiscal conservative views?

For me, it is easy. I constantly dream, plan and work to become RICH. Conservative views favor and benefit those who do the same. When I become rich, I will be the same person, only rich. Why should that change my views? Do you know of any RICH people who are working to become poor?

2. Why do some blacks favor the very same policies that are working against them – republican goals, elitism, etc?

These policies only work against those who wish to remain as they are, self perpetuating victims of their own misfortune, ineptitude or inabilities. By the way, you are confusing Republicanism with Conservatism. Your article also presumes that all blacks think alike and that we are all poor and liberal. Whites must be rich, conservative AND liberal. Why must all blacks be alike?

3. How do people allow conservative pundits to hide their economic plight under the umbrella of God and religion?

Blacks, of all the known races, hide behind religion more than any other. Economic plight in America is directly related to the amount of effort one puts into one’s own economic development. Nothing a PUNDIT can say or do will affect me unless I grant permission. Like the devil, pundit’s real power is granted by his victim. If blacks spent as much time WORKING as we do COMPLAINING, we would have eclipsed the majority decades ago. As it is, we have whined ourselves into THIRD place in the pecking order. The only reason we are economically no better off than Cambodian immigrants is that there are more of us than them.

PS To answer your message’s premise (Do conservatives fear liberal thinkers?): When was the last time YOU heard of a LIBERAL being booed off stage, attacked with cream pies or prevented from speaking at a college? When was the last time conservative students took over a college dean’s office in protest of LIBERAL policies? Blacks in America have the distinction of being the only people who routinely protest when a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE speaks at a college.