The Right to Own...Death

As I sat last night at a Christmas service with mixed choirs including the children's choir, I had mixed emotions and was indiscriminately tossed between the joy of seeing young  children enjoying a church Christmas celebration and the aching sorrow knowing that 20 families in Connecticut have been robbed of this joy.

Feeling sorrow and saying our prayers for the families, however, is not enough-- faith without works is dead.  The most well-organized lobbyists in Washington, D.C. are those of the NRA.  Their members are those who in the midst of a mass shooting chide anyone from using a tragedy involving guns to even consider regulations.  They speak out against demeaning the memories of the victims by politicizing  the tragedy.  Of course, there is no right time to discuss the regulation of weapons.  They criticize the media for exploitation for the gun lobbyists and owners of these types of weapons do not want the public to see what carnage semi-automatic weapons can do.  It is exactly the time to talk about regulation of semi-automatics with large magazine capacities since they were not only used to murder 20 children and 6 of their teachers in a school but in nearly every mass shooting since the 1980s.  For the first time, however, we are dealing with victims so very young.

While the Internet is not a safe place for gaining verifiable research, one can learn much from the responses that gun owners have given for the need to possess semi-automatic assault weapons such as those most recently in the Connecticut massacre.

The most prevalent answer is some variation on the fact that they can.  Consider the following

"As a free man living in a so called free country, i am not going to justify my needs to anyone."

"My response to 'Why do you have/want/need an assault rifle?' would be "I want one."

"Same reason I have a 4 slice toaster instead of the more pedestrian 2 slicer: I want it."

"Because I can."

"Because they are a citizen and not a subject."

"why do you need a ball point pen, a computer or TV, surely the founders hadn't thought those would ever exist." 

"My usual reply is 'That is none of your business. Why do you have what you have? Do you want me nitpicking and asking you about why you own your posessions too?'"

"Do we really need these things? Yes, I may not use mine for the same purposes as the next person but mine is a precise and efficient tool that I use on a weekly basis. I don't use it for mass shootings of human beings for the reason that I am a law abiding, level headed American citizen. That should give me the right to own whatever the hell I want."

Then there are those who own guns because it is American.

"It's the people's last recourse against tyranny."

"It has less to do with the needs of the individual than it does with the needs of the Republic.  The Republic of the United States of America needs citizens to keep and bear military grade weaponry in order to have a pool for a well trained militia and as a final line of defense against all of the enemies of the Republic and its Constitution, foreign and domestic."

"Owning a black rifle is a civic duty, not an individual want or need."

"because governments,...all governments, eventually seek total power over those they govern....and fuck you, thats why."

IN fact, if everyone were to do this civic duty and be armed in public, many believe we would all be safer:

"In my opinion the only real deterrent is armed citizens who will react when they find themselves in those types of situations. It ain't much but it's a hell of a lot more than some "make me feel safe" ban on something that will only serve to disarm the ones that don't need disarming."

And then there are those who argue that since there are many more things than guns that may be used to kill, why not simply ban everything:

"Why not ban any vehicle that is faster than the speed limit? Why not ban long butcher knives? Why not ban the ability to "Supersize" your fast food order?  These all make just as much sense as banning large capacity magazines."

"In the right hands, a hand full of spoons and butter knives can injure many people, just like a seriously foggy morning and a slippery road. Should we, then, ban spoons, butter knives, and bad weather?"

"Anything could be used as an assault weapon look at David and goliath one little rock is all it takes I have an ar15 I didn't buy it to harm any one just to have fun with and kill pigs and stuff" 

"Might as well ask why someone needs a car that can go 160 mph when 70 is the speed limit. Or why do you need a compound bow when a traditional bow can do the same thing." 

"Tobacco kills more people then guns so, why not ban tobacco. Just another example."

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, just like alcohol don't kill people, it's the people that are irresponsible and abuse it that kill and harm others due to alcohol. Ban guns, ban alcohol, ban drugs, ban whatever you want irresponsible people are still gonna find something&abuse it and it will get outta control and hurt others"

Sometimes, believe it or not, doing something simply because one can is not a good enough justification.  It is rather unsettling to know there are people in our communities who may never take the time to consider why they do the things they do.  What ever happened to "the unexamined life is not worth living."  For these people, there is no direction.  They are placed on the earth to do whatever they can get away with.

Civilization, however, is a process of collective self-examination and constantly refining our laws to a changing technological landscape and our moral absolutes to an ever-diversified human race.  In the process, some things we held to be morally appropriate in the past, such as indentured servitude or slavery, we recognize to be unjust.  And some things that we had no need to regulate-- such as highway speeds and air traffic-- justify the creation of new legal parameters.

And why do I feel particularly less safe knowing that a large group of those who own semi-automatic assault weapons are dong so to fulfill their civic duty?

I am also fairly confident that some of the weapons on hand in the U.S. Armed Forces might be able to take down a group of armed citizens fighting against tyranny.  I do believe at one time the weapons available to the federal government were similar to those of the cobbler or cooper-- the Second Amendment made more sense then.

While our friends have certainly identified a variety of things that may be lethal if in the wrong hands, I think we would all agree that while we would never ban our favorite McDonald value meal, many of us might consider banning extremely foggy mornings.   The truth, however, is that while many things can kill, guns are designed.  And semi-automatics are designed to kill more quickly and with less effort.  I have no doubt that anyone premeditating a mass murder will not choose butcher knives, spoons, butter knives, cigarettes (to force victims to smoke several packs a day until a large number contract heart disease or COPD and die?), drugs (to force a large group of people to ingest lethal amounts of drugs?), a slingshot, or for that matter perform an elaborate bad-weather dance to whip up a lethal storm.  The weapon of choice is the semi-automatic weapon with large magazine capacity.  When armed with semi-automatics, an individual is not only instantly more powerful than those he wishes to kill, but is able to kill many more victims.  For these mass-murderers the semi-automatic is the coward's choice.  Those who own these weapons must accept the fact that the potential for extreme carnage in the wrong hands outweighs their own right to possess them.

But for the fact that we are living through a nightmare in which the most innocent have been violently taken from us, their arguments would be part of a SNL routine.  The fact that they will continue to make these assertions and in mass numbers demonstrate how little they value humanity and how they will continue to dismiss logic, reason, and morality in favor of their own selfish and unexamined rights.

But our entire society has been whittled down to the financiers who compound the largest profits of free enterprise and the consumers who feel entitled to have as much as they want.  As a society, we are losing our sensitivity to how safe we and others are in having and using what we possess, and we are continuing our insensitivity to how our desire to own and the investor's desire for exorbitant profits affect the workers who produce what we possess.

This time, however, we must decide between a semi-automatic and a child.  This should be an easy choice, right?  Where your treasure is, there is your heart.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT

Dear Mr. President,

     You have been elected at a very singular moment in American history.  You have been elected to begin the process of resuscitating an American middle-class that has been subject to the unfettered license of business leaders and financial moguls for the last thirty years.  For decades now, the very rich have benefited from continuing income tax cuts from a one-time high of over 90 percent to an all-time low of 28 percent.  Capital gains taxes and corporate taxes have also been so unconscionably low that CEOs and investment bankers have used their financial license to accumulate reckless amounts of capital for themselves and stockholders even as they cut jobs, reduce wages, eliminate benefits, and convert pensions to the 401 (k).  At the same time as businesses were booming and a few were drowning in new wealth, the workers no longer reaped any of these rewards.  In fact, the so-called entitlements weighing down the federal deficit are programs or agencies that are doing what the leaders of finance and industry have historically refused to do-- reigning in risky investments; working for an industry's long term health and not the short term pay-off; eliminating pollution; making products that are reasonably safe, food that is uncontaminated, and pharmaceuticals that are well-tested before being marketed; ensuring that workers have safe working conditions, monthly income upon retirement, adequate health care, unemployment income when they lose their jobs, and public assistance when they too often fall into poverty.  It is time for the top two percent to pay a little more!
     The federal government has had to spend trillions, while the top two percent have made their millions and billions relying like spoiled children on the federal government to spend whatever amount necessary to clean up their mess.  If it weren't so ignominious, we would almost have to laugh at the way in which the same people whose behavior has compelled the federal government to spend itself into debt, continue to demand a reduction in spending.  The Republicans preach that their upper class constituents require less and less financial regulation and taxes, but they do not believe that these same individuals have any other responsibility than making money for themselves and their stockholders.  The very rich have forced the federal government into debt and then complain that he government is spending too much.  The truth must be told that while government spending does not benefit the upper two percent of Americans, it is their reckless and avaricious business practices which are the proximate cause.
     If supply side, trickle down, economics really works, then why does a middle class salary have less buying power today than it did thirty years ago?  Why is America forced to have a greater number of two wage earner households than any European country?  Why has the typical CEO's salary gone from 40 times the average worker's to 400?  Why, over the last 40 years, has the compensation for American workers risen only 10 percent while the companies they work for have realized an 80 percent rise in productivity?  Why have big business lobbyists, whose sole job is to entice elected officials into supporting corporate interests, grown from 175 in 1971 to a record 15,137 in 2007, nearly 2,000 of whom are former government officials?  Why do Americans own only 40 percent of the nation's housing stock, when we owned 70 percent in 1985?  Why do only 18 percent of workers receive employer paid health insurance when 80 percent received this benefit in 1980?  Why do only 35 percent of workers receive life-time monthly pensions when 84 percent received them in 1980?  Why do the richest one percent of Americans take home 23 percent of the income?  Why does this same select group earn more money than the economies of Canada or France?  Why, during the Bush II years, did corporate profits rise to their highest level since 1943 while money going toward employee wages fell to its lowest level since 1929?  Why have the wages of a worker in Germany risen 30 percent since the 1980s while the wages of American workers have risen only 5 percent?  Why, in the last ten years, have U.S. companies hired 2.4 million overseas workers while eliminating the jobs of 2.9 million American workers?  Why can so few make so much money?  And why can't such incredible corporate profit trickle down the way we were promised it would? The reason lies in the fact that this economic theory was designed and implemented for no other reason than to increase the profits of CEOs, stockholders, and financial institutions.  Henry Ford did not have to attend an Ivy League School to understand that the best economic policy to garner profits for owners and investors is to keep workers healthy and happy, for as consumers, they will purchase and increase the demand for the excellent products they help to create.  Unfortunately the worker is no longer even an after-thought in what has come to be an "increase profits at any cost" mentality.  This is not only immoral, it is not only bad economics, it jeopardizes the freedom that all Americans are guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution-- if the majority of Americans lacks the freedom to earn a decent wage because a select few are taking that right away, then the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on and America, at least in economic terms, is no longer a free country.
     Mr. President, those of us who voted for you did so because we believed that you would right our ship, that you would begin the turn-around that will take back the economic power for the majority which, since the mid 1970s, was actively stripped away by the prevailed few.  You won this election in spite of the high price paid to PACs to defeat you.  And you will certainly continue to face the tyranny of the plutocrats in the form of their high-priced lobbyists who will promise elected officials anything to solidify the status quo.  Let the inordinately wealthy understand that America is not an aristocracy but that it remains a democratic society where the majority rules.  Keep your eye on the prize, steeled against the criticism and insult delivered from the right.  We have your back because you have promised to have ours.


Sincerely,


David Kuyat, Ph. D.

White and Wrong Answers

Why did the Republicans lose?   Too many gifts to the 47 percenters?  Too much "urban" vote?

This guy right here is "urban" enough for me!!

The sanest rationale comes from those who say that there is nothing wrong with the Republican message; it's just hitting the ears of Hispanics and Asians all wrong.  According to this premise, a simple tweaking of the Republican platform-- maybe adding the words Hispanic and Asian along with Israel and God-- will find many minority voters banging down the Republican doors to get in.

A less sane one sounds like this:  a majority of American voters are now takers for whom the Obama-Democratic message of big government resonates and for whom individual success is instantly maligned.  According to this premise, there is no salvation for a country that is heading for political and moral destruction.

I think that there is a far simpler reason why the Republicans lost the Presidential election.
The answer lies in the answers to a few questions.

Evangelicals are
a) a cult that features a white Jesus
b) true white Christians
c) true white Americans
d)  all of the above


A tea party is
a) a bunch of white people with white rage hating the federal government because that's easier than blaming themselves
b)  a bunch of white people with white rage hating the federal government while accepting all the social advantages that derive from the federal government.
c) a bunch of white people period
d) all of the above

Abortion is
a) something white men should be fighting against
b) a procedure rare among white men
c) something white men are far better able to discuss than women
d) all of the above

Same sex marriage is
a) something that white men either dream about or fear
b) something that keeps white homophobes going to Chick-fil-A
c) something that white Jesus hates
d) all of the above

Paul Ryan was chosen as Mitt's VP because
a) he was a white conservative who would appeal to other white conservatives
b) a white guy whose sexy gym pic would increase the white male turn-out
c) he was really really really white (without a trace of "urban")
d) all of the above

Average white voters in the South
a) are 80 percent likely to vote for a white guy
b) have fantasies of living as overseers of large slave plantations where they can rape and abuse black people they way they were born to be treated
c) think the Confederate Flag is a symbol of all that's great about being white and American
d) all of he above

The correct answer:   Republican = WHITE

The reason why Romney lost was because the largest part of the Republican constituency is not the ardent Catholic fighting against abortion or the really rich guy who loves the financial license Republicans grant him, but the white racist (most from the old Confederacy, a great deal from the very white states of the Midwest).  Racism was simply not a huge draw for Hispanics or Asians or any other minority group.  And it was not a draw for white women.  And it was not even a draw to whites on the left and right coasts.

Let's face it!  The Republicans are never going to be able to expand their base as long as their base is a group of white racists.  And the Republicans are not gong to be about to change their message to a more universal or appealing one since their message is created by white racists.

There are two things equally true for this constituency
1) they live in hatred and fear of the black man
2) the Republican Party is a comfortable place for them to exist and procreate

88 percent of Romney's support came from white voters

In Southern states Romney overwhelmingly won the white vote (89 percent in Mississippi; 84 percent in Alabama;  68 percent in North Carolina;  62 percent in Arizona;  65 percent Missouri, 61 percent in Florida and Virginia)

These are the only states we have exit pols for, but you better believe that the whites in the states of the old Confederacy supported Romney from between 60 to 90 percent.

These people aren't going anywhere, although they talk a lot about secession.
Lest you think that it is absurd to think that so many years after the Civil War there are whites who still formulate their identity as members of the Confederacy, keep several things in mind.  There has never been such animosity among Republicans to the results of an election as there has been this year.  Whites are publicly talking about secession.  There has never been such hatred of a candidate as there has been to Obama-- there are web images showing him lynched or depicted in simian terms or whites sites
hailing the merits of white dudes and despairing at how much has been given away to blacks.  .  There is a severe insecurity problem among many whites who simply cannot understand the world and heir won place in it when the highest elected office is held by a black man.  Bereft of self-confidence, these people lash out against the same "other" that has always given them the greatest surrogate fro their missing self-assurance and has instilled within them the deepest level of fear-- the black man.

There is no good reason for any nonwhite group to vote for a Republican knowing that their greatest constituency believes that American is first and foremost a white nation.  This transcends any possible connection that any nonwhite group might have with Republican policies.  And let's make no mistake-- the Republicans were counting on this racist voting block to carry them to victory.

So all this talk is cheap.  Republicans will win elections when the white racists prevail; they will lose when the white racists lose.  Simple.  Unless heavy duty statements arise from leaders of the Republican Party that they abhor any and all manner of racism, the Party of Lincoln will live and die by racism.

A Letter

 A sample letter regarding the freeing of the MOVE members from over 30 years in prison! 

Michael C. Potteiger, Chairman

Pennsylvania State Board of Probation and Parole

Eastern Region Office 
2630 North 13th Street
Suite 100
Philadelphia, PA 19132 

Dear Mr. Potteiger, Governor, and Members of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole: 

As a 49 year old life-long citizen of our great state, I am writing to express my disappointment in your decisions not to recommend the following for parole not once but on several occasions:  Janine, Debbie, Janet, Delbert, Mike, Phil, Eddie, and Chuck Africa.  Unfortunately it is too late for Merle.     I myself have never written any appeal letter before, but I decided to write this letter out of the compassion to which I was moved when I read their stories and researched their fates.

It is hard to find precedence for not offering parole for those convicted of third degree murder.  Each of the aforementioned individuals has been incarcerated 34 years, far too long for the charges for which they were found guilty.  If they have acted as model prisoners (which I believe to be the case), and the determination to deny parole is based wholly on their refusal to confess to a crime for which they believe they are innocent, then I am very much disheartened by your rationale.  No human being should be expected to confess to any action for which he or she is convinced of his or her innocence:  this is not only a sin against one’s own conscience, but it compels one to discard the one virtue that has granted individual dignity and inner freedom, the truth.  I am not writing to express my disagreement with the verdict; indeed, that fight can wait, as it has these many long years, for another day.  Justice can be accomplished right now, if you would recommend these individuals for parole in order to give them a chance to live out the fractions of their lives that remain to them.  I believe that they will become positive members of our free society, an opportunity that they now deserve and for which they have already waited far too long. 

There must be one of you whose conscience must be moved toward compassion if not for justice.  We are race of people who believe in second chances when they are warranted. 

There are individuals who have been placed by God in positions of authority, individuals like you.  I myself am a teacher and know what responsibility comes with this position.  Each day we are presented with opportunities in which we have the ability to impact another’s life positively or negatively.  I believe that one day we will all be held accountable for the decisions we make when presented with these sacred duties; and at the very least, we too will find ourselves dependent on the good will of others.  I am asking you to choose to do rightly by the eight remaining members of MOVE who are still incarcerated and to recommend their freedom.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully submitted:

The End??

It's all over but the shouting, and the obese woman is practicing her scales one last time.  My head is crammed with thoughts, and as cynical and distant as I have become, my heart aches at  least a  little.
First, I find it so ironic that the fate of the President essentially rests in the hands of white men-- if the President can garner sufficient votes from this constituency (Romney's constituency), maybe 30 percent instead of 28 percent, then he will be rewarded with another four years.  Ironic and tragic that so many white men whose economic situations are so similar to most African Americans will identify themselves with the rich white guys based on color alone.

Be that as it may, I have better thoughts.  The out of context President's quote that ignited a Romney adopted refrain of "We built our businesses, not the government," compelled me to assess my own journey.  Obama is right-- none of our successes are attributable to ourselves alone, and those who make such a claim lack so much self-confidence that they cannot be expected to take a trip into their past to evaluate themselves with integrity.  For to make that journey requires humility and gratitude, and some egos are just not wired that way.

For myself, I think of my parents and my neighborhood.  My mother whose work ethic was simply a part of her faith in a God who wants what is best for his children.  Bible readings over breakfast, church and adult Bible studies, healing services.  How she befriended and cared for the radically different-- women whose looks and psychological illnesses reduced them to hermits whom she escorted on trips downtown and welcomed even to live for awhile with us; elderly and disabled women who resided at the neighborhood senior care facility for whom she would provide free haircare;  the drifters who would stop by the house for a hand-out and for whom she would cook (I watched in shock at how ravenously a hungry stomach could put way food).  I think of my father who fought in the Battle of the Bulge and who never could secure the American success story for himself, but whose ability to make the most of any situation was astounding.  Pestered by me to reveal something of his war experience, he recounted only one memory to me.  That of the day he was taken out of battle due to trench foot, being carried by two young German POWs.  Nearing their destination, the one young German at my father's feet, let the stretcher down in exhaustion.  Immediately an American officer rammed the butt of his rifle into the young man and screamed that no one treats Americans that way.  My father admitted how sorry he felt for a young man who was so much like himself.  And one month before he died, while coming out of anesthesia he said flatly, "War is Hell."  Those who think that Christianity or Patriotism is some cheap neon sign flashing a cross and American flag are just those who jump on bandwagons without understanding how unfathomably deep and hidden lie the roots of real citizenship and faith.

 I think of my neighborhood and those who I went to school with-- how many varieties of poor there are.  I think of those of us who made it to college-- Don Featherstun, Eric Dixon, Steve Kendall, Wanda Northington.  And those who I can only suspect were lost along the way.  I remember the Kirby family at whose house I stayed and had dinner with until my mother returned from work-- they had so many kids, what was one more?  I think of those teachers we had who actually cared and tried to make some form of educational Goshen in a land of drop-outs:  high school teachers like Mrs. McLaughlin, Mr. Iezzi, Mr. Carpenter (RIP), Mrs. Brunger, Miss McKim, Mr. Steele.  I think of my professors at Duquene Univeristy especially Dr. Clack who served as my mentor, my Tio, who gifted me with his old albums to introduce me to Ethel Merman and Gustav Mahler and everything in between.

When Barack Obama was elected, I felt vindicated in some strange way-- I praised his election on behalf of all of those in my past, black and white from the North Side of Pittsburgh.  But yesterday when I read Maureen Dowd of the NY Times describe the President as uninspiring, I was filled with white rage (as Tracy Morgan would say).  Uninspiring?  To whom?

At a private all girls' school on the Main Line outside Philly that had committed itself to diversifying the student body and faculty, an area had been set apart for watching the broadcast of Obama's inauguration.  I was overwhelmed; even I was on the point of tears, when I looked up to see the P.E. instructor, a black man nearly seven feet tall, with tears pouring down his cheek.  This was his time, not mine.  My time was 200 years ago when white men invented a country that outlawed diversity, treating women like second class humans, and blacks in property terms-- serviceable or worthless.  What must he be feeling?  Was he like me considering the possibility that racism and sexual discrimination were in the throes of destruction.  How could he really?  How could any African American?  He was, I suspect, savoring down to his marrow the success of one black individual, one who had overcome, and not praising a country that would have done anything not to allow him to reach this precious moment.

Little did I know that this was simply a way for a large number of white men and some white women in federal or state government do guarantee that this black man would not continue to inspire, to succeed, to remain the archetype of hope and change so that in the end, they could collectively wash their white hands with the claim-- we all gave him the chance, look at him now.  I do see a worn and weary President, but I also see his struggle as emblematic of the struggle of the people with whom I grew up,  every single African American who is condemned either because he or she doesn't succeed (they are just not smart enough) or because he or she does (they get all the breaks).  A no-win situation. And African Americans continue to walk forward every single day of their lives (Hercules or Sisyphus) taking the insults and injuries.  And we who are white think of it as water off a duck's back, and we put our faith in their patience and resolve.

So I will end this reflection not only with the hope that the President does gain four more years, but with the hope that a group of young black women whom I have had the pleasure of teaching and knowing will use the power they have claimed to turn this nation upside down--  Nadya, Tanisha, Maiki, Saidi, Rayven, Jazzlyn, Jocelyn, Ebony, Jennifer, Fay, Jasmine, Shannan, Neveen, and young women like them.  I am hopeful that their patience has run out, and that armed with righteousness, beauty, and wisdom they will inspire.  O how they will inspire!!

We the People!

In these waning days before the 2012 Presidential Election, I cannot help but think that whatever happens, it has been so cathartic for so many white voters.  When, for example, was the last time white men could openly disparage a black man without being rightly called racists?    So let the insults fly!  I am hopeful that even with a Romney victory some of us will not return to business as usual.

Some of us will grab that power that in our powerlessness we have all too briefly touched, not as a privilege, not as the exclusive property of the propertied class, not as a favor granted by the ruling class, but as a right to keep and maintain with a strong and firmer hand.  We too can be confrontational.  We too can be obstructive.  We too can make the status quo uncomfortable.  While they labor to go backward with nostalgia for the good old days of white men and obedient wives, while they play make believe, their own ears deadened by their own cacophonous cries of how the founders were Christians and filled with Christian virtue, while they desecrate words like "freedom" and "equality" hiding in the caves of their own ignorance stubbornly imagining that the shadows on the wall are real and that the fire behind them is the sun; we will walk into the light, no matter how our eyes ache upon seeing the truth.  We will congregate and multiply.  We will suck out every last drop of learning that we can.  We will be sly foxes and gentle lambs.  We will live as true Christians (in the world but not of the world) even as the Evangelicals demand otherwise, claiming a spiritual monopoly, throwing obstacles in the way of would-be believers.  Let them construct their grand and shining temples.  They build upon the sand-- upon ignorance, upon intolerance, upon injustice, upon bigotry, and upon oppressive legalism.  Let then claim "We built this House!" while we know that unless the Lord builds it, their labor is in vain.  We will commit ourselves to drawing lines between the political and the spiritual even as Christ refused a kingdom on earth when tempted by Satan and when questioned by Pilate.

We will fight for basic human rights and the dignity of the living.  If the political landscape in the aftermath of this election becomes a democratic wasteland, we will begin to till the soil and plant the seeds, waiting for the oases to bloom.  We will promulgate as many Gileads as we must to serve as sanctuary for victims of what may become a reactionary and oppressive country.  We will not endorse laws that limit basic human freedom, that scour away human dignity as though it were a stain, that wreck with  enterprising license those few structures of democratic success that we had believed were sacred landmarks.  We will not go away!  For we are the people!  And our we will not shrink down in the face of their one percent
assemblies of ego.  We are far bigger than they had ever imagined.  
 

The Price of Racism & The Lost Opportunity

I must admit that I have been dispirited by the articles appearing in the NY Times in which the President's blackness is in question (most recently, "The Price of a Black President," by Dr. Frederick Harris, a Columbia University professor,  NY Times 10/28).  As a white man,  I do not presume to identify my opinion with any direct experiences with the sinful history of the African American in the United States; I cannot, however, refrain from defending a President who has already suffered too many attacks against his character by whites that he doesn't need to start counting his black detractors as well.

First, I must disagree with the argument that the President has been weak on representing black interests and is responsible for causing too many members of the educated black elite to distance themselves from more direct engagement in civil rights issue in order to align more closely with him.  To make such an assertion at this stage in the campaign is at best bad timing and at worst a complete disregard for the perilous position in which the President finds himself.  Stated simply, Barack Obama was not elected to be the president of a black activist organization, a position at which I have no doubt he would succeed.  As one who represents all Americans and who garnered a good deal of support from white voters, his mission was to make America a better place for all.  I am not saying that this vision was even remotely possible or that it was not in some ways incredulous:  but it remains his job description.

Second, doubts about the President's advocacy of policies that directly improve the lives of people of color is one of semantics, i.e. the policies aren't lacking, they have been promulgated in terms of ALL Americans.    But Dr. Harris seems to be stuck on semantics.  After rattling off the dismal statistics for African Americans (dismal educational statistics an interesting omission), he admits that the President cannot be blamed for any of these facts.  He rightly acknowledges "Republican obstruction" as the culprit.  Dr. Harris wants the black voice without regard for actions.  To that end he quotes from Frederick Douglas that "power concedes nothing without a demand."  Frederick Douglas, however,  was saying this as one seeking to break into the power structure.  This is hardly apropos for the President whose difficulty is not is not how to take but how to use power that he has gained.  If he is to be chastised by black activists and the black elite, then the President is truly in a no win situation-- fighting for causes that improve the lives of citizens from the middle class down (including and perhaps particularly people of color) which, being so anathema to Republicans, he can barely get passed while fending off people of his own race who want him to be more evocative of the plight of blacks in America.   Furthermore to compare Barack Obama with civil rights leaders who answer strictly to their limited black constituency is unfair.  How far does any reasonable person think the President would have gotten if he had used rhetoric and policy to promote his agenda in racial terms.  It is surprising that he got anything accomplished at all.  For example, a populace that in advance of the 2007 election responded to polls that that health care was their most pressing concern, now seem to wonder why so much energy was expended on a matter that was simply not that significant.  And for a black man (not a white man like LBJ advised by a black man like MLK) to have passed into law the very first piece of social legislation since the 1960s alone should confirm Obama as a successful president.  And even then, the Republicans immediately denigrated the Affordable Healthcare Act as Obamacare:  can anyone imagine that they would have been this insulting to a white Democratic President?  They could not even afford him the dignity of the office of President.

Racism is the single most determining factor in this election.  The incredible coagulation of former enemies and strange bedfellows has emerged like some giant teratoma to defeat one black man.  Think of the new Mormevangelicatholic monopoly on spirituality, morality, and decency.  And theirs is a win-win situation.  One has only to stand silently around while white men converse anywhere in suburbia to hear things like, "Anybody but HIM!"  They no longer need to use the N word anyone.  Why do the racists know how dangerous a force Obama can be, but certain intellectuals like Frederick Harris whittle his importance down to the "symbolic exceptionalism of his Presidency."  The groundswell of condemnation for the President among whites can now be couched as simple political dissent.  We know the birth certificate thing, the Muslim thing, his too amiable relationship with an activist preacher.  These have never disappeared; they have simply been mixed with newer insults-- apologies to Muslims, questionable patriotism, underminer of Christian virtues, the movie 2016, and the like.  Consider this:   Barack Obama is well ahead in the polls before the so-called Denver debacle; overnight, the race becomes a dead heat.  To one misdirected NY Times writer Frank Bruni ("Obama's Squandered Advantages," NY Times, 10/28) who dismisses racism and blames the President's apathy, his cool detachment, or whatever you want to call it, it was this debate that cost him.  My question is how a two hour debate can make such an incredible and lasting difference and not simply a temporary bump in the numbers.  The reason is clear:  a majority of white voters 1) had no concern for the stark divergences in the policies and ideologies that separate the two candidates and their respective parties if those who supported the President pre-Denver could jump ship so easily; and 2) they were already intending to jump on the Romney wagon anyway, waiting only for Mitt to demonstrate that his whiteness could cancel out his Mormonism, his only black mark, pun intended.   And the white prevailed.  Was it any wonder that the running mate was someone whiter than Mitt?  Is it coincidence that 90 percent of the Romney Ryan signs are placed on a stark white background.  Even Romney's chief advisor is aptly named Mr. White.

Romney showed his hand early (he has since changed decks several hundred times) when at the RNC and immediately thereafter he made a specious claim that he and so many of his white friends had put so much faith in Barack Obama that it is so gut-wrenchingly difficult now to admit that the dream was not fulfilled.  To make so blatant a lie trivializes the importance of Obama's election for African Americans some of whom may tragically have thought that such a milestone meant the beginning of the end to racism in America.  Is there not racist motivations in trivializing a singular moment in black history?  What Romney did was to slam the lid down on any residue of doubt or any remaining guilt in the national conscience about racial discrimination in politics and upheld the long-standing conviction that if given an opportunity to be President a black man or woman simply could not do the job.  The "black experiment" failed.  The white are ready to get along with their lives.  Racism may now establish itself in the national DNA:  it is coded, prodigiously replicated, and pronounced the new normal.

From a purely self-serving position, I confess that the Barack Obama's first term has re-opened my eyes to how racist a culture America really is.  All whites should feel a sense of shame at how a great portion of the white race has bullied and abused this president, when we all had the chance to embrace this moment, and urge our  white elected officials to work with the new President to accomplish so much.  To ask this, however, is to deny reality.  Pigs with wings cannot fly; one black President does not make America racism-free.  I had forgotten where I came from, the public schools I attended, and the wasteland there to engage thoughts more favorable and comfortable. It still holds true that the unexamined life is not worth living:  the prophet Daniel could well say to me, "You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

It is clear to me that our President is exhibiting signs and symptoms of battle fatigue.  There are times when I wouldn't be surprised if he were thinking to himself about just walking away.  FDR and LBJ gained entire Congressional and popular support for almost all of their grand social policies; Obama has been publicly demonized over the only one he has been able to get through Congressional obfuscation and obstructionism.

Worst of all is the possible legacy if the President does not (and maybe if he does) win a second term-- a confirmation that an African American's only means of betterment is in separatism.  For me as a white man, I can only hope to be allowed in the back door-- African America's contribution to American culture is incredible, earned through obstacles, unknown by most whites.  As the rapper Lupe Fiasco has recently written, They gave us scraps, some of it old.  We cooked it up, and called it soul."  For such creatively not to be advanced and integrated into American society is tragic.  The African American has never had his story adequately told in public school system.  Presently the good that comes from black culture is seized upon by white capitalists so that we end up, for example, with professional level college basketball and football teams comprised mostly of black students whose athleticism is exploited without them ever experiencing the opportunity to learn.  Maybe Dr. Harris should be cleaning out his own house in the Ivy League Schools (and universities in general) rather than trying to redecorate the President's.