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.

Is the Party Racist?

This piece has gone around the blogsphere since last week. As I noted on another blog, Powell is being honest and on the mark. I feel and have felt this way about the Republican Party since high school. I disagree with Powell regarding his notion that the party has changed; I think it has been this way dating back to the 1980s when it sought to garner the attention of white religious conservative Americans; the party has expanded its agenda in that — as noted by Powell — it is now way farther to the right regarding economic and social policy (Tea Party). But with the Tea Party all but dead, as noted in the last election, Republicans might seek to move back to the right — that is from the far right; I do not think it is a reactionary party. With the Democrats taking a strong victory during the November elections, the Cold War Republican Party might seek to regain its identity with the likes of a Colin Powell.

“Civil Unionism” and True Marriage Equality by Jack Detiveaux

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

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

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

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

A Political Season

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

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

Politics, Pictures, and Homecoming I Guess

So, look at what happened when I arrived to the office today. I suspect folks assumed I took a turn toward the “R” side. Nope. It was a John Rasplicka invasion.

Homecoming week is in place here at HC and I am doing my best to participate. Well, I am doing my best in terms  of spirit I guess. Yesterday, John Rasplicka and I participated in twin day. Here were my thoughts going into it: Sherie Pierce took the picture below of John and myself on twin day; I told John I would dress like a White conservative Republican; in return, he stated that he would dress like a Black leftist intellectual. Who knew we would wear the same attire!

It is all a matter of point of view.

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:

Cut, Poison, and Burn by Donna Navarro

The following post was written by Donna Navarro; she is one of the biggest activist in the nation when it comes to the health care industry. Her influence has reached as far as the congressional floor of Washington; her connections to major U.S. figures are ubiquitous; I have known and worked with Donna for almost 8 years. I offer this post as a means of balance and objectivity. I have yet to see this film which opened earlier this year in L.A. I do intend on watching it on the campus of Houston Christian in the coming weeks. Once I have seen it and done my research, I will have to make a decision about American health care. For the record, I do endorse Obama’s universal health care bill. While some might find this film controversial, I applaude its efforts at offering the masses information. Remember, information deemed vital to the public that is silenced or with held is a form of fascism.

“Controversy is only dreaded by advocates of error.” Benjamin Rush

It seems to me that my take on Medical Freedom has become more and more of a controversy in my life.  Why do people not get that all I want is for the American people to have freedom of choice, the freedom to choose the modality of treatment for their disease/illness.

Cong. Dan Burton (IN-R,) is introducing a Bill for medical access called, HR2736 “Access to Medical Treatment Act”.  You can go to www.govtrack.us to track where the Bill is at in real-time and/or see who your representatives and senators are in order to contact them to support medical freedom.

“Cut Poison Burn”, a documentary on the corruption of the medical establishment and how it is one big monopoly.  The film raises issues that have been long ignored, there needs to be serious dialogue in finding a solution and not bury our heads in the sand.

You can go to www.cutpoisonburn.com to view the trailer and go to facebook to press  ”Like”.

The documentary is being shown at Houston Christian High School on Nov.30^th and Dec. 3^rd at 7:30pm in the Chapel.  You can purchase tickets on line at www.cutpoisonburn.com.  The tickets are $12.00 each and part of the proceeds go to cancer charities, you can see the list on the website.  Please come see the most important film of your life.

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

More on the Shuttle Program

I admitted in an earlier post that I knew very little about the shuttle program and hence, could not speak with any real authority. However, since hearing George Cernan take shots at Obama and placing absolute blame for the canceling of the program, I elected to read more. Since then, I have learned a great deal. It was Bush that cancelled the program in 2005. Obama was simple carrying out what his predecessor put in place.

George W. Bush stated,

“We cannot find any justification to continue the deficit funding of a program that has no application other that proving that with enough money America can do anything,” said Bush.

I Want Some Tea Today.

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

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

The Tea Party

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

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

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

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

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

(Credit: CBS)

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

Marc Lamont Hill

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

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

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

This was fun too:

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

Check out the video here:

I Do Not Teach Politics

In the comment box under Targeting People, my friend Matt S made the comment of the year. The paradox of ideology found here:

Too funny: progressives fear big government deciding what is “reasonable suspicion” (racial profiling, abuse of the system), while conservatives fear big government deciding what is “reasonable health care” (genetic and biological profiling, abuse of the system). Big government is big government.

Matt S comment sums up the process of politics — which I like discussing, but do not teach. Hence, I will teach the AP U.S. Government and Politics course next year as well as a course in Macroeconomics for the first time in four years. These are courses I am easily comfortable with and have a vast understanding of, though they are so different from a history course. I will admit that I like the graphs and economic theories that shape public policy. However, as a historian, the study and teaching of history creates greater debates due to being rooted in interpretation and past phenomena. That is not the case for “political science” type courses. They are driven by quantitative and behavioral analysis. People too often get caught up in the emotion of politics, however, those who understand it know that there is a predictability factor making it far more scientific. I am sure there are students wondering if I will approach this course from a biased perspective. The reality of course is that it is hard to be biased when one has data in front of them. Thus, I think I find the teaching of history to be far more interesting. I hope to do a good job blending the two.

As stated in my title, I do not teach politics; I teach about behavioral actions shaped by historical trends that bring about political actions. I will paraphrase what Professor Mark A. Elrod of Harding University once stated: “The teaching of political science is like being a surgeon, he is focused on fixing current problems, whereas a historians is like a mortician, who examines the past.”

I tend to see dead people.

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.

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.

Gene Locke for Mayor

Above: I am displaying my work and campaign support for Gene in front of my Houston home.

It has been a number of years since I last took on an active role in local politics; I am working with the Gene Locke campaign for Mayor of Houston; I find this exciting because it gives me a chance to put my stamp on the current political processes here. Still, I am not in wholly agreement with all of Mr. Locke’s views, but there is something honest about his passion for working to make Houston a more vibrant place to live and work. Furthermore, he did state that he will work  to address the problems of vice and poverty that is a current issue…and one that is close to my heart. Though our current and soon to be candidate for the U.S. Senate race, Bill White, is a Democrat, Houston is a city that supported Republicans heavily at the national level. The 2008 presidential race is a break in which Obama carried Houston. This is a first in 40 years for this traditionally conservative city. I will be working the phones a bit calling on Houstonians to get out and support Locke for the November 3rd election day. Note, early voting started today.

I suspect many believe that Locke will carry the black vote due to his party affiliation and race, however, I am not sure that will be the case. Locke does cater a bit to the more conservative business community of Houston. Such facts, though, tend to be absent in the black community. See his campaign ad here:

Universal Health Care

What does equality mean? Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence purported that “all men are created equal.” However, he was not talking about blacks or the plight of the poor. Jefferson, though he permitted that his slaves be freed after his death, insisted on the matter that blacks were genetically inferior to whites. Furthermore, this international document went on to espouse the basic notion that all individuals are entitled to “inalienable rights” and henceforth are assured of equal rights. It is safe to say that what individuals make of this is “wholly” dependent on their abilities and efforts.

American society, for the most part, does not emphasize equal results or equal rewards; few Americans believe that every person should earn the same wages or hold the same amount of land. In other countries, for example, the government allocates tax dollars in order to assure that all of its members have the most basic necessity of health care. Though I understand why many fear an egalitarian system of property/wealth distribution, I am puzzled why this is a factor when it comes to universal health care. Sure, too much distribution of wages “might” advocate a system that stifles talent and limits opportunity, but such a system also assures the basic needs of those that make up its polity. Much of the American premise as it relates to one’s rights rest in the enlighten philosophy of John Locke, and later borrowed by Thomas Jefferson. Though Americans and western society heavily relate to the optimistic views of Lockean philosophy, Americans might be wiser to seek the more pessimistic writer, Thomas Hobbes… who promulgates that man has basic rights and is equal according to the laws of nature.

Furthermore, Hobbes contends that one cannot base equality according to mere size, seeing that a weaker person has the ability via technology to kill a stronger person.  I am sure we all  recall David and Goliath.Thus instruments are in place to promote equality, much like the common purpose or purported goal  of an American education. Because inequality in education exists, many minorities and rural whites do not receive the proper education needed to attend and be successful in college. Think about the number of elite private schools in the country that have a very small number of black students. Often enough, minorities and rural whites are victims of educational slavery in that they live in low property tax communities.

So, if Americans shy away from promoting absolute equality when it comes to education, it might be difficult to expect universal health care for the many that are sick and cannot afford to make basic payments; I find it interesting that the people most against it are those that can afford it. I just do not see how Americans can buy into liberty and equality on one hand, but take on a conservative action as it relates to class and healthcare on the other hand. This is a paradox to me.

Joe Wilson

I found this over at the Political Cartel. I guess Joe Wilson would approve of this. You can read the article there.