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.

The Anti-Christ or the Christ in the White House

80% of people polled stated that this picture clearly looks like Obama. I am not sure  what the other 20% were looking at. I am not sure what the final poll numbers looked like, but I suspect they increased. It is pretty amazing how some right-wing Christians continue to showcase their ideological biases and stupidity by playing the anti-Christ card. It makes Christians look bad. Keep in mind that Christians face a tough road politically in their marriage to the Republican Party has bastardized both groups. One Christian radio show went as far to say that God guided the History Channel in its revelation of who Obama is.

As noted before, there are black Americans frustrated with Obama; however, their frustration is greatly different from that of white America. Blacks have made the mistake of claiming Obama to themselves. Many assumed that he would arrive and eradicate the injustices placed on them with his New Deal thinking.  In return, blacks now realize that Obama cannot be that savior. The president of the US is a weak man. His powers are limited. Obama is the voice of all people, not just blacks. During the arrival of Jesus Christ, the Jews had been highly anticipating this great savior who would unleash His wrath. Yet, much like Obama, Christ was not what the Jews anticipated. Both are viewed as weak and passive by the very people that had been calling for them. In the case of Obama, he will not face being crucified by his own people — like that of Christ. Obama knows that he is the chosen one for a race of people that cannot depend on the conservative anti-New Deal thinking that exists within a Republican Party that ushers to a certain class and race.

4 More Years

I am not sure how Imani Daffin knew, but she got it right. I like Obama. She cut my class the other day to attend his 2nd inauguration. I think it was well worth it. Oh, here is my cool Obama mug. Cheers to four more years!!!

A Message for White Voters

My Department Chair sent me this article in which it presents the argument that white people failed to elect Obama to office. I think the best thing she sent me was Chris Rock’s take on Obama’s whiteness. Warning: Do not drink anything while viewing this video. It is hilarious.

The Election Count

It is election time on my campus and I have created a board to tally students’ electoral counts via here. Now, I will admit that I believe this is an easy election to call. I did struggle with two states: Ohio and Virgina; in the end, I awarded both to Obama.. I did not do so blindly or from an ideological perspective. There are numbers that have sold me on my conclusion.

Thus far, students in my AP US History and AP US & Politics course have placed their numbers on our “working” board. Once my other AP US History and AP European History sections have confirmed their call, I will repost.

Here is a picture of my prediction; I am willing to admit that my count might be off due to Virginia and only Virginia.

Pre-Election Lesson

I wrote this back around the first Obama election and thought I would educate the masses a bit more.

I found this political cartoon on another blog I read. I thought it said a great deal about the paranoia and ignorance of many; however, it does speak to the heart and truth about some American  fear regarding President Obama. I do not know why some fear him except that he is different. And, people do have the right not to like him as president. That my friends is okay; I do not like Ronald Reagan much. What makes America great is that we allow diversity. It comes in race/ethnicity, thought, religion/sect/denomination, gender, education, and norms. Here are a few points about the above political cartoon:

1. Although Obama transcends race, there are people who fear him due to his race. Let us face it friends, people will use other reasons to justify not liking him besides the fact that he is black; however, I do think this number is not as substantial as some would or might think. Maybe I am naive.

2. Education. I have found that a great number of people (be it how many have I really spoken to) cannot relate or comprehend the true intellectual fervor of a person with his knowledge. Thus, I am sure he speaks above the level of some.

3. Muslim. Are you serious?

4. Communist. First of all, communism is anti-intellectual. If he promotes the Orwellian condition of a state being watched, then such a state already existed.

5. Brainwashed: People forget that Obama is not the first to do the t.v. to schools/essay suggestion. It was Ronald Reagan who did it back in the 80s. See here.

6. NAZI. Remember, this ideology is anti-black and anti-communism. He cannot be all three. They are in diametric opposition of each other.

7. Antichrist. Are you serious? In Revelation 13:5-8, the antichrist is referred to as “the beast:” “Then the beast was allowed to speak great blasphemies against God. And he was given authority to do whatever he wanted for forty-two months. And he spoke terrible words of blasphemy against God, slandering his name and his dwelling—that is, those who dwell in heaven. And the beast was allowed to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them.

8. Socialism. Why is Obama one but not FDR? (see picture and comment)

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. FDR noted that a radical change in the American economy was needed to address the economic and social ill that emerged. Historically, such things may occur to offset a particular condition that was not broken, but one that needed a jump start. Hence the political term stimulus. Academics call it injection. 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. Funny, but again most people do not know that Marx did not wholly favor socialism. You see, folks, socialism was the opposite of communism (after stage development) — according to Marx. That is why his system failed; it was unrealistic and in many ways, criminal.

Going back to Weber’s thesis: 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 permitted the moral and responsible behavior of a society.

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.

Anti-Obama Display

Obama hating is the norm here in Texas. However, Texans are pretty creative when it comes to show casing their sense of disdain toward the POTUS. Last week while traveling through Huntsville, Texas, I crossed a ranch displaying a massive banner of Obama’s face. The caption reads: Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Below is one of the more creative anti-Obama displays I have seen. I also blogged about it here.

Above: Pictures of communists associated with Obama in a negative way by right wingers. Karl Marx, Frank Marshall Davis, Obama, Bill Ayers, and Che Guevara

I Got His Back….How About You?

Let us be clear, I submitted my vote a long time ago. There is no debate here.

Did Santorum Almost Call Obama the “N” Word?

I feel like I am delving into American TMZ sensationalism, but it is very difficult for me to dismiss this. We know about the excellent relationship the Republican Party has with black people, but I am not sure this is a good example. This is what I heard:

“We know the candidate Barack Obama, what he was like. The anti-war government ni, uh, the, uh, America was a source for.”

You watch and tell me if it sounds differently:

Is Obama the End of Black Politics?

I am a bit late on this post. With Martin Luther King Jr.’s statute now placed prominently among many of the US most prominent architects, a new debate must and will transpire. Have we as Americans moved closer to a post-race society? I suspect not. Americans elected a bi-racial president for the first time, but even the election of Obama carries with it hints and embedded notions of America’s problems with race. Black leaders have been caught up in the squabble regarding race and politics. This intra-racial conflict clearly showcases not only the divisiveness of racial politics in America, but the sound lack of resolve among a dichotamized group: Young black Americans who were not a part of the civil rights movement, and that of an older generation of black civil rights members. The New York Times published an article entitled, Is Obama the End of Black Politics? This piece captured a bit of the tension regarding the old guard and the new guard, as noted here:

…tension between Obama and some older black leaders burst onto cable television last month, after an open microphone on Fox News picked up the Rev. Jesse Jackson crudely making the point that he wouldn’t mind personally castrating his party’s nominee. The reverend was angry because Obama, in a Father’s Day speech on Chicago’s South Side, chastised black fathers for shirking their responsibilities. To Jackson, this must have sounded a lot like a presidential candidate polishing his bona fides with white Americans at the expense of black ones — something he himself steadfastly refused to do even during his second presidential run in 1988, when he captured more votes than anyone thought possible.

The irony of that New York Times title is that it represents a transformation regarding post-racial politics. Here we have a president that vacated the topic of race during his campaign and thus far while in office. Furthermore, Obama continues to ignore the question of race. Though he is the president of the United States and hence he should be the single voice for all Americans, his racial identity will not allow that to occur. Black folks have been waiting for the black messiah….The chosen one. And, unfortunately for Obama, he is that messiah. Yet, because his first obligation is to the country, a number of blacks have grown frustrated with Obama. No other American president has had to deal with complex matters regarding a single racial group like Obama; it is safe to say that he has had to carry the greatest burden of any president after FDR (he did drop two bombs on Japan. One could make the argument for W regarding 9/11). Thus, the question continues almost four years later: Is Obama the End of Black Politics? In truth, he is just the start.

There are black Americans frustrated with Obama; however, their frustration is greatly different from that of white America. Blacks have made the mistake of claiming Obama to themselves. Many assumed that he would arrive and eradicate the injustices placed on them with his New Deal thinking.  In return, blacks now realize that Obama cannot be that saviour. The president of the US is a weak man. His powers are limited. Obama is the voice of all people, not just blacks. During the arrival of Jesus Christ, the Jews had been highly anticipating this great saviour who would unleash His wrath. Yet, much like Obama, Christ was not what the Jews anticipated. Both are viewed as weak and passive by the very people that had been calling for them. In the case of Obama, he will not face being crucified by his own people — like that of Christ. Obama knows that he is the chosen one for a race of people that cannot depend on the conservative anti-New Deal thinking that exists within a Republican Party that ushers to a certain class and race. The irony of course, is that Democrats also cater to a race and class of people.

Obama, Race, and America

Two great lies exist that many Americans are unwilling to deal with. 1) Whiteness tells us that race and diversity does not matter; we should be colorblind in a world that sees race. 2) Blackness tells us that it is okay to be aware of race, however, we must elect to ignore it in order to keep the peace. Obama is dealing with the matter of blackness as he heads into a re-election season. Below is an excerpt about Randall Kennedy’s new book on Obama and Race

Interview Highlights

On why Obama’s election didn’t change racial issues significantly

“I think that there were some people who had, you know, a sort of an unrealistic view, a millenarian view, as if everything was going to be different. But racial conflict is deeply embedded in American history. And so it was unrealistic to think that one election or, frankly, even two or three or four will erase something that is so deep and that is so pervasive in American life — namely the race line.”

Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency

by Randall Kennedy

On how Obama has addressed the needs of African-Americans

“I don’t think that anybody can reasonably say that he’s neglected the needs of the black community. You know, the president’s an important person, a powerful person, and he is certainly not above criticism. And sometimes, at least in my view, I do not think that he has pushed hard enough a progressive agenda that would be helpful to those further down on the American socioeconomic ladder.

“At the same time, those who criticize the president from that vantage have to recognize that the president is in a dilemma. He’s caught in a dilemma, and he faces very powerful opposition. And so it’s not that he’s been neglectful. He’s — I think he’s been trying, but he’s up against powerful opposition.”

On the challenges the U.S. must still overcome

“As important as the presidency is, that’s not the only thing to take a look at in determining the racial health of the United States. If one takes a look at levels of impoverishment, if one takes a look at levels of incarceration, if one takes a look at the gap in life expectancy, in morbidity at … many levels, it is still the case that people of color are beneath others — particularly white people — in our society.

“The fact of the matter is we still — even with Barack Obama in the White House — we still live in a pigmentocracy, and it’s going to take more than having a black first family to change that state of affairs.”

On the Wilder or Bradley effect — when voters say they’ll vote for an African-American candidate, then don’t

“Among political scientists, there’s a lot of debate as to whether that actually was a true phenomenon, or whether that was … just sort of a figment of peoples’ imagination. My own sense is that there is some of that. After all, one of the great things that’s happened over the past half-century or more is that racism [and] racial discrimination has been ostracized. It’s not a good thing. It’s not a cool thing. It’s an ugly thing, and people know that.

“And even when people have biased views, they keep it to themselves or they’ll cover it up. So one of the things that Barack Obama has faced is detractors, opponents, enemies who [are] opposing him, at least in part, because of his blackness, but they would never say so. So they seize upon something else. Oh, he’s a Muslim. Oh, he wasn’t born in this country. Those are covers, sometimes, for racial discrimination. And then, of course, sometimes it’s the case that we hide our views from ourselves. We know that we’re not supposed to be racially biased, and we don’t want to think of ourselves as racially biased, so we tell ourselves a different story.

“So we’re sincere — we really believe that the way we’re acting has nothing to do with bias. We really believe that. If … you put us under truth serum, we would say, ‘No, this doesn’t have anything to do with bias.’ But, in fact, it does.”

Source

Four More Years

I am getting excited about four more years. Obama is a shoe in to be re-elected; if you doubt me, review your American history circa 1996. Look closely at the polls and mid-term elections, too.

Libyan Matters

I was engaged in a conversation with other bloggers and students regarding Libya, and thought I would share my feelings about this matter here at The Professor.

I do believe, as I stated to others, that the United States overreacted to the Libyan matter. Sure, I might be wrong in the long run, but to take action in this fashion is a bit suspect (i.e., the hint of military intervention). Mr. Obama cannot win this; if he does nothing, folks will continue to attack  his perceived weakness: too much diplomacy and befriending the world with very little action. But, on the other hand, folks such as myself and others are pointing to his hypocrisy. That is, he attacked Bush for advocating the conflict in Iraq and, made a decarlation to return American troops. But, the hint of flirtation into the current crisis adds to greater conflict. Though, the initial indication is that the USA will focus less on ground troops and more on air raids. But again, I ask this question: why Libya and why now? I suspect there is some international pressure for American intervention. I question Obama’s motives here; I am wondering if he is looking to 2012. And if so, I am not sure this helps.

As for Iran, we will not attack them due to the Chinese and the Russians. Both of these states have little interest in the affairs of Libya. Plus, much of this is a bit of a show driven by the French (my opinion). As a matter of conjecture, I am thinking the French are too concerned with migratory matters vis-a’-vis Algeria. The British PM saw what happened in the last election to take an aggressive stance on this. In the end, I am not sure we know who we are endorsing. Libya has been stable for a good period of time. And yet, a few weeks of an armed rebellion has shifted Obama’s foreign policy. Why not wait and see if the current matter turns into the Egyptian resolve?

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.

Character of a Nation

Two years ago this week, I went into shock only to discover that I had a brain tumor. This tumor which was a cyst,  kept fluids from draining from my brain, causing a great deal of bleeding.  After spending time in ICU and under going seven hours of brain surgery, I was back in great health. The cyst did not contain cancer. This of course was far more serious than when I tore my knee up as a poor college student without health insurance. I am still making payments on that. The difference of course is that I can now afford health insurance, whereas before I could not nor could my parents; I think about the millions that cannot still. I am sad when I hear that Americans do not favor what is clearly a revolutionary decision.

I am proud of each Congressman that voted for this. You put the good of the many ahead of the good of the few. Thus, I am sad to say that you will most likely get voted out of office by those that have health insurance. My parents, who are uninsured, thank you. I thank you. Millions of Americans thank you.

Nancy Pelosi stated it well tonight when she said “health care is a right, not a privilege.”

Alcohol, Health, and the President: Can He Drink?

OK. I will admit that I hate listening to music when on a run; better yet, as a blues man, I prefer to think; however, there is only so much one can think about while conducting a training run, as was the case for me yesterday. I did my last “real’ run for the week before this weekend’s marathon.  A 12  mile hop around Memorial Park. I have already accumulated too many miles this week…. I have logged about 40.

While thinking and running, I was pondering this question — Does the president or any president have the right to consume alcohol? Obama recently had a physical and the truth sort of came out Though he is thin and looks healthy, he could do better. George W. Bush, in my opinion, was a better athlete and more fit than Obama — at least at this stage in office. Obama, who has a professional staff to cook for him, often eats like a 17-year-old.

But the real question is that of alcohol consumption. A pilot cannot drink within a certain period…and even then, he must use “good judgment” on what he drinks and how much (as we all should as responsible and mature adults). Most Americans that work cannot consume alcohol during the work day. The president is always on duty…much like a medical doctor on call. Even when on vacation he must fully be in absolute control of his faculties. I do not know the answer to this, but I want to know your thoughts. I congratulate W Bush for defeating his battles with alcohol, now I suspect Obama must do the same with smoking; his health is absolute and in many ways he is responsible for it.

Race, Politics, and History

I have found it highly important to stress the importance of historical markers vis-à-vis racial constructs and voting in  my United States History courses. Often time, people are perplexed by the significance of Obama being elected. And, folks are even more perplexed over the matter of race. The latter point greatly confuses me. As noted in the post-circa American Civil War picture above, president Grant led Congress to debate the issue of black suffrage, raising the question of the vote for women. The controversy over the Fifteenth Amendment split the women’s movement; it passed, but did not assure black suffrage and left the issue of suffrage in the hands of the states.

Paradoxically speaking, the Fourteenth Amendment should have secured the black vote; however, due to the use of black codes, Congress quickly moved to adding the 15th. Southern states from 1868 to 1964 used various tactics to keep blacks from having any political power; it is here that shaped the constitutional liberal notion against states’ rights; blacks looked to a strong central government to protect their plight. Interestingly enough, this attitude has changed little. Blacks continue to eye states with a great deal of suspicion. As a collective group, they shifted their political loyalty by the 1960s; it was at this point that blacks supported Democrats over Republicans, though an embryonic move was in place during the New Deal. However, there is a caveat to this: many Southerners favored Democrats, too. In an ideological way, Republicans were still viewed as the party of Lincoln; it was the party that emancipated the negro and interrupted a way of life. Southerners would not shift to the Republican party until the election of Ronald Reagan during the 1980 election. Funny, but the two parties had already shifted. The Republicans of Lincoln were really the Dems of the Civil Rights movement. This part here is another post. But, I do want to note that it was a southern Democrat (LBJ) who was most instrumental in helping blacks gain greater rights.

Thus, black folks did not embrace Reagan. Better yet, he was seen as a racist — one who catered to racists looking to recapture the traditional elements before the civil rights movement of the 1960s. The traumas of the 1960s and 1970s created a loss of confidence among Americans; he capitalized on this feeling to easily win the 1980 verdict. Reagan promised to rebuild the nation’s defenses, cut inflation, restore economic growth, and reduce the size of the federal government; in reality, he did much of the opposite. Sure, he made cuts in a number of programs. Many of them aimed at helping lower-income Americans; he also cut taxes, but primarily for wealthier Americans. While reviewing a number of textbooks for my paper on Teaching the 1980s, I noted that:

Reaganomics and its assault on welfare are linked to racial issues of the 1980s. According to one text: Reagan portrayed those on welfare to being those of African-American descent. The text did shape a correct image in noting that whites living in rural areas were the primary beneficiaries of welfare, not a black mother of two living in an urban area — as noted in one of his speeches. He spoke to states rights. He spoke against affirmative action. On one hand he addressed his support for Bob Jones University, but then went on to discuss how race is not an issue. Keep in mind, Bob Jones University openly discriminated. The rational: It is not the job of the federal government to intervene in matters of the state. What?

The poorest Americans fared poorly. The bottom tenth saw their low incomes decline by 10 %. 1986, a full-time minimum wage worker earned $6,700 per year – almost $4,000 short of the poverty level for a family of four. One out of eight children went hungry and 20 percent lived in poverty, including 50 percent of black children.

While many Americans place blame on George W. Bush and Barrack Obama for the current debt crisis, all they have to do is read a history book to find that our current debt is not from New Deal programs, but from an expanding Cold War economy dating back to the 1980s.  I say let us give president Obama a chance; Americans have used both race and ideology to work against a much-needed effort at American reform. Hence, blacks will continue to vote in an ideological box; it is not because Obama is bi-racial; it is because many either read their history book, lived in an age that impacted them due to their race, or have experienced the plight of being black in the 20th and 21st century.

Disclaimer

I did not footnote any of this information; it does have a particular lean to it; however, I suspect that if you read this blog you already know this. Thus, the greatness of America is that of voice; being permitted to share and engage in a discussion that is constructive. If you would like a works cited page, feel free to email me.

Calling for Health Care Reform

Might this be the future of the health care industry:

The Obama administration called on Anthem Blue Cross on Monday to justify its controversial new rate hikes of as much as 39% for individual policyholders, saying the increases were alarming at a time when subscribers are facing skyrocketing healthcare costs. (see full article here)

My folks could not afford to keep me on their insurance plan once I left for school, thus the inevitable happened while in college: I tore my knee up which required roughly around $100,000 in reconstructive surgery and rehab. I am still paying for this and I am upper middle class. Think about those folks that cannot afford to deal with insurance hikes that by far exceed the rate of inflation? I wish you well Mr. president.

Liberals and the Health Care Bill

This weekend Republican Representative Anh Cao, a Vietnamese American from Louisiana, voted “yes” for the recently passed health care reform bill; I am proud of Cao and others that realize just because I have health insurance, or they have health insurance… that does not mean that we should not help the many that do not have health insurance. Mr. Cao stated that he represents a poor district in which many of his constituents do not have health insurance. What is impressive is that Cao’s district is largely lower-income blacks — a population that does not vote for a party that traditionally has been anti-poor. However, Cao’s passion for doing what is best and what is right escapes both ideology and political affiliation.

Blue dog Democrats and conservative Republicans do not favor this bill. Why should they? This group represents a population of upper middle-class whites that can afford health insurance. I want the wealthy and middle class to set aside the notion of rugged individualism for a second and evaluate the day-to-day fears of driving in a car without health insurance. If one hit another car in a collision, how would that person afford the thousands it will cost them in rehab? Former American president and Constitutional framer James Madison warned against majority factions dictating the way of life for all; in this situation, the majority is made up of those who can afford health care and who are against this bill. In Madison’s Federalist Paper number 10, contends that the Constitution should guard against what he calls majority rule, hence stating that direct democracy is dangerous, thus ruling in favor of representative democracy; still, the fallacy is that a majority still lives in a representative democracy; I suspect we will hear commercials that liberals are evil, un-Christian, immoral, and communist.

But the reality is this: Liberals are not negative adjectives. In essence, we advocate for the working class, the poor, and minorities against big business. Moreover, we are  supporters of civil rights for blacks, women, and ethnic minorities against the repression of government and business. Thus we see ourselves as defenders against what Madison might call a ” direct faction.”

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

As a big fan and supporter and believer in what Obama is doing and will accomplish, even I was surprise to learn that he won this prestigious prize; however, if one looks at this through a different set of lens — why be surprised? He has been working to make the world a far more peaceful place. His international colleagues, even the Russians and Iranians, have nothing but praise for him. It took both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan years into their presidency before they reached international stardom. The first president to win this was Teddy Roosevelt after negotiating a peace between Russia and Japan following the Russo-Japo War.

Some believe that Reagan should have won this award for the end of the Cold War, however, I suspect he did not due to his continual build up and escalation of nuclear arms during the mid 1980s. There are two books that examine this:

The once widely held view that Ronald Reagan stumbled his way through the end of the Cold War by sheer good luck has been shattered by two recent books—one by a conservative scholar, and the other by a liberal intellectual historian. Together, these two books, building on the work of previous scholars since the collapse of the Soviet empire, catapult Reagan to the forefront of presidential greatness. Paul Kengor’s The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, contends that Reagan’s goal of defeating communism and winning the Cold War can be traced to his early struggles against communists in Hollywood as head of the Screen Actors Guild in the late 1940s. In this fight against an attempted communist takeover of the union, Reagan was, in the words of fellow actor Sterling Hayden, a “one man battalion.”

Peter Schweizer, based at the Hoover Institution, was the first scholar to significantly make the case that Ronald Reagan deliberately set out to win the Cold War. In two books—Victory: The Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union (1994) and Reagan’s War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism (2002)—Schweizer used interviews with some of Reagan’s national security and foreign policy staffers, national security directives, Reagan’s speeches and private correspondence, and documents from several foreign countries, to argue that Reagan intentionally abandoned détente, moved beyond a passive containment policy, and pursued a strategy of victory.