They announced UK/LSU scores all evening at the regional high school band competition tonight.
Several great things here.
It wasn't so much that the UK football team beat a no. 1 team (although they hadn't done that since 1964) but they won the kind of game they've been losing for decades. UK used to play top teams tough, but find ways to lose in the end.
Tonight, they found ways to win in the end.
Another thing is that Kentucky scored the last two touchdowns of regulation against an LSU defense that was supposed to be dominant. UK's strong on both lines and has lots of talent in the skill positions. It showed tonight.
Finally, the LSU win is a validating win. Arkansas and Louisville don't seem as strong now as they seemed when UK beat them. But LSU was coming off a win over Florida and has a win over South Carolina as well. LSU is the real deal and the win over LSU validates the previous wins over Arkansas and Louisville.
After the Louisville win, I wrote that UK was a 10-20 team. They look more like a top ten right now and playing Florida straight-up win or lose next week would confirm that.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Ann Coulter, Jewish People, Kittens
When the announcement for Ann Coulter's new book came out, I predicted that Ann would try to stimulate sales by putting in a picture of herself biting the head off a kitten.
Given that the kitten is still alive, the prediction would seem to be wrong.
Instead, Ann is trying to goose her sales by dabbling in anti-semitism. You can't help but admire the clever way that Coulter steers interviewer Donnie Deutsche toward her anti-semitic comments on "The Big Idea." When Deutsch asks Coulter about her ideal version of America, she describes the 2004 Republican convention (via African-American Political Pundit).
So, what's the meaning of it all?
Obviously, Ann Coulter is trying to increase sales of her book by being "outrageous" and the Anti-Defamation League gives her a hand by being "outraged":
That's the same calculation that goes into Coulter's gay-baiting of people like Bill Clinton and John Edwards. If Republicans had a shot at the gay vote, she probably wouldn't do it.
Beneath that calculation, there's another calculation that should disturb Jewish leaders much more than Coulter's "outrageous" comments. If Ann Coulter is going to get out this kind of casual anti-semitism, then it's quite likely that she doesn't think that the Jewish community is capable of anything more than impotent outrage.
If I were a Jewish leader, I'd be much more worried about the political calculation behind the insult than the insult itself.
Given that the kitten is still alive, the prediction would seem to be wrong.
Instead, Ann is trying to goose her sales by dabbling in anti-semitism. You can't help but admire the clever way that Coulter steers interviewer Donnie Deutsche toward her anti-semitic comments on "The Big Idea." When Deutsch asks Coulter about her ideal version of America, she describes the 2004 Republican convention (via African-American Political Pundit).
In her recollection of the convention, she said: "People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America."Of course, Republican delegates were also overwhelmingly white, straight, and very well off. By focusing on Christianity, however, Coulter leads Deutsche into his next question.
"It would be better if we were all Christian?"Now, Coulter is off to the races. Having set up the question about not accepting other religions, Coulter answers with a simple "yes" as a way to focus the interview on her favorite terrain, i.e., the question of whether she's a bigot, in this case whether she's anti-semitic.
" When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws."Under more questioning about whether she was being "offensive," Coulter continued:
It's almost needless to say, but Ann ends her anti-semitic statement by implying that it's really the Jews who are prejudiced. "We believe your testament, but you don't believe ours." I swear that sometimes I think there must be a Bigotry for Dummies book that instructs racists, homophobes, and religious zealots to end every statement with a claim that minorities are the ones who are the real bigots."No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament."
So, what's the meaning of it all?
Obviously, Ann Coulter is trying to increase sales of her book by being "outrageous" and the Anti-Defamation League gives her a hand by being "outraged":
"Coulter's remarks are outrageous, offensive and a throwback to the centuries-old teaching of contempt for Jews and Judaism.But there are some interesting considerations there. For example, it looks to me like Ann Coulter--who is as good at political calculations as anybody--has decided that there's no chance for a Republican presidential candidate to get anywhere with the Jewish vote. So, why not start a controversy over anti-semitism if that's going to help her sell books. It's not like she would think that Jewish people are a group that actually matters to the Republican Party or the conservative movement.
That's the same calculation that goes into Coulter's gay-baiting of people like Bill Clinton and John Edwards. If Republicans had a shot at the gay vote, she probably wouldn't do it.
Beneath that calculation, there's another calculation that should disturb Jewish leaders much more than Coulter's "outrageous" comments. If Ann Coulter is going to get out this kind of casual anti-semitism, then it's quite likely that she doesn't think that the Jewish community is capable of anything more than impotent outrage.
If I were a Jewish leader, I'd be much more worried about the political calculation behind the insult than the insult itself.
Help! Ahab's After Me
My sister-in-law Cheryl just sent me some pictures from our August family reunion. My kids are cute, but I look like the great white whale at about 230 pounds. Time to lose.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Sanchez on Incompetence and Other Bush Crimes
CRIMES OF NEGLIGENCE. Speaking about the war in Iraq, Ret. Gen. Richardo Sanchez, the U. S. military commander in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, claimed that Bush administration incompetence was responsible for the "nightmare" of the Iraq War.
An indictment of Bush administration negligence would certainly be extremely long--including George Bush's going with his "gut" on invading Iraq, the idiotic belief that the occupation would be a piece of cake, the decision not to suppress the initial round of looting, the breaking up of the Iraqi Army, and the failure to evaluate the internal politics of Iraqi Shiites.
Of course, there was Abu Ghraib as well.
As matters of criminal negligence, all of these examples of neglect and incompetence constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" that would be impeachable if the Democrats were strictly applying the constitution.
Sanchez doesn't mention that the Bush administration was also involved in a variety of crimes against humanity that would include the constant round-ups and illegal interrogations of "men of military age," the treatment of accused terrorists at Guantanamo, the policy of exporting accused terrorists to countries that engage in torture, and the use of practices like extreme sensory deprivation, psychological torture, and waterboarding in our own facilities.
It's already well-known that the Bush administration has been engaged in widespread violations of American and international law. By alluding to the criminal negligence in Bush administration conduct, Sanchez adds another dimension to the indictment of the Bush team.
As was the case with Jimmy Carter's assertion that the Bush administration has been engaged in torture, what Sanchez is saying about "neglect and incompetence" is obvious and has been for years. What's interesting is that Sanchez is characterizing the incompetence of the Bush team as "criminal negligence." Bush administration officials would have been "court-martialed" if they had been in the military because their "neglect and incompetence" resulted in the loss of so many American and Iraqi lives and the waste of so many military assets.If some of America’s political leaders were in the military they would have been relieved or court-martialed long ago, Sanchez told a conference of military journalists.
"Neglect and incompetence" by the National Security Council has led to an intractable situation in Iraq, the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq said.
An indictment of Bush administration negligence would certainly be extremely long--including George Bush's going with his "gut" on invading Iraq, the idiotic belief that the occupation would be a piece of cake, the decision not to suppress the initial round of looting, the breaking up of the Iraqi Army, and the failure to evaluate the internal politics of Iraqi Shiites.
Of course, there was Abu Ghraib as well.
As matters of criminal negligence, all of these examples of neglect and incompetence constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" that would be impeachable if the Democrats were strictly applying the constitution.
Sanchez doesn't mention that the Bush administration was also involved in a variety of crimes against humanity that would include the constant round-ups and illegal interrogations of "men of military age," the treatment of accused terrorists at Guantanamo, the policy of exporting accused terrorists to countries that engage in torture, and the use of practices like extreme sensory deprivation, psychological torture, and waterboarding in our own facilities.
It's already well-known that the Bush administration has been engaged in widespread violations of American and international law. By alluding to the criminal negligence in Bush administration conduct, Sanchez adds another dimension to the indictment of the Bush team.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Anger over Graeme Frost
I am generally not particularly affected by right-wing nastiness. It's disgusting and I try to highlight the disgusting aspects of right-wing smearing in my Smearkrieg series. But I generally look at right-wing smearing primarily as a tactic by political forces that I oppose. In the case of Graeme Frost, however, I find that I have a lot of anger over right-wing efforts to smear him and his family over the family's receiving S-CHIP assistance.
Thinking about why that is the case, I want to give my "friends" on the right an idea of why the smear didn't work and why it will get worse for them if the story goes on.
The bottom line is that the Frost case reminds me of Terry Schiavo.
What made most Americans disgusted with the conduct of the right in the Schiavo case was that they could imagine the Bill Frists and James Dobsons interfering with their cases if they were catastrophically injured. Would the religious right keep them alive as vegetables for ten years? Twenty? Forty? People were invested in the Schiavo case because they saw what the right was doing to Terry Schiavo as something that could happen to them.
The same is the case with Graeme Frost and his family. The two Frost kids were in a car accident, have had large-scale medical bills, and have benefitted from the S-CHIP program. What makes me angry about the efforts of Malkin and other conservative bloggers to smear the Frosts is that they would just as soon do the same thing to my family if we were in that situation and it suited their political purposes. My family makes more than twice the income of the Frost family but that could easily be wiped out if one of us was injured, became ill, or otherwise wasn't able to work. If my family received assistance as a result of these kinds of events, we could be just as subject to a right-wing inquisition as the Frosts.
And the thought of it pisses me off.
Obviously, it's dangerous for me to generalize from my own anger over the Frost smear to the country as a whole.
But I think that a lot of the reason that the right-wing is losing ground in the Frost controversy is that most Americans have a sense that the right could treat them the same way.
And they don't like it.
Thinking about why that is the case, I want to give my "friends" on the right an idea of why the smear didn't work and why it will get worse for them if the story goes on.
The bottom line is that the Frost case reminds me of Terry Schiavo.
What made most Americans disgusted with the conduct of the right in the Schiavo case was that they could imagine the Bill Frists and James Dobsons interfering with their cases if they were catastrophically injured. Would the religious right keep them alive as vegetables for ten years? Twenty? Forty? People were invested in the Schiavo case because they saw what the right was doing to Terry Schiavo as something that could happen to them.
The same is the case with Graeme Frost and his family. The two Frost kids were in a car accident, have had large-scale medical bills, and have benefitted from the S-CHIP program. What makes me angry about the efforts of Malkin and other conservative bloggers to smear the Frosts is that they would just as soon do the same thing to my family if we were in that situation and it suited their political purposes. My family makes more than twice the income of the Frost family but that could easily be wiped out if one of us was injured, became ill, or otherwise wasn't able to work. If my family received assistance as a result of these kinds of events, we could be just as subject to a right-wing inquisition as the Frosts.
And the thought of it pisses me off.
Obviously, it's dangerous for me to generalize from my own anger over the Frost smear to the country as a whole.
But I think that a lot of the reason that the right-wing is losing ground in the Frost controversy is that most Americans have a sense that the right could treat them the same way.
And they don't like it.
More Than Mean-Spirited
I don't think that Hillary Clinton quite gets it right when she describes the right-wing attack machine as "mean-spirited."
Of course, it's not like the term "mean-spirited" does not have an honorable lineage in relation to the Republicans. Kentucky Democrats often refer to Republicans as "mean-spirited" Republicans.
And "mean-spirited" might still be a good term for regular Republicans.
But "mean-spirited" does not adequately capture the sick viciousness of the right-wing attack apparatus. In fact, what the right's been doing to the Frost family isn't unusual or distinctive at all. It's the same thing they did to 9-11 widows, Michael Schiavo, John Kerry, Max Cleland, gay people, the Alabama Democrats Rove attacked as pedophiles, and the impoverished black women the right used to stigmatize as "welfare queens.
In each case, the smear artists of the right sensed a smearing opportunity and moved in for the kill as if smearing was the only thing that made their lives worthwhile. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case for a lot of them. They smear, therefore they exist.
That's not mean-spiritedness, it's a particularly repulsive kind of sadism that the right confuses with toughness. As a type of politics, it's best characterized as the "politics of repulsiveness."
“President Bush and the Republicans should lay off Graeme Frost and all the other children who are getting health care . . . I thought I’d seen the depth of political partisanship and mean spiritedness but the Republicans and their right wing allies have really taken the cake this time."
Of course, it's not like the term "mean-spirited" does not have an honorable lineage in relation to the Republicans. Kentucky Democrats often refer to Republicans as "mean-spirited" Republicans.
And "mean-spirited" might still be a good term for regular Republicans.
But "mean-spirited" does not adequately capture the sick viciousness of the right-wing attack apparatus. In fact, what the right's been doing to the Frost family isn't unusual or distinctive at all. It's the same thing they did to 9-11 widows, Michael Schiavo, John Kerry, Max Cleland, gay people, the Alabama Democrats Rove attacked as pedophiles, and the impoverished black women the right used to stigmatize as "welfare queens.
In each case, the smear artists of the right sensed a smearing opportunity and moved in for the kill as if smearing was the only thing that made their lives worthwhile. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case for a lot of them. They smear, therefore they exist.
That's not mean-spiritedness, it's a particularly repulsive kind of sadism that the right confuses with toughness. As a type of politics, it's best characterized as the "politics of repulsiveness."
Carter Being Obvious Again
Jimmy Carter stated another obvious truth in an interview with CNN.
Unfortunately, we've gotten to the point where statements by major Democratic figures about the obvious truth concerning the Bush administration are rare . . .
And praiseworthy.
In an interview with CNN, President Carter said the U.S. is undoubtedly torturing prisoners in violation of international law. “I don’t think it. I know it,” Carter told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
Unfortunately, we've gotten to the point where statements by major Democratic figures about the obvious truth concerning the Bush administration are rare . . .
And praiseworthy.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Jimmy Carter: Master of the Obvious
"Master of the Obvious" might be an understatement in relation to Jimmy Carter's comments on Dick Cheney for Reuters today.
In many ways, Dick Cheney is a tragic figure. Cheney waited thirty years for his opportunity to enact his vision of unlimited presidential power and his ideas turned out to be just as disastrous now as they were during the Nixon years.
However, there really is little doubt that "Cheneyism" has been a disaster for the United States and its interests in the world--a disaster that will take a long time to recover from.
Folks on the right might argue that it's improper for Carter as an ex-president to criticize a sitting vice-president so harshly, especially during a time of war.
But ex-presidents Carter, Bill Clinton, and even George Bush I should have a duty to speak out more concerning the abuses and disasters of the current Bush administration, not less.
As I've observed many times in the past, the Bush administration is no longer a credible government and the United States really needs people to step into the void and speak with the (informal) authority of the public concerning issues of public importance.
I initially thought that Nancy Pelosi might be able to serve as a spokesperson for the public at large. But she wasn't willing to risk the next election to serve the public now.
Ultimately, it looks like all the major figures outside the Bush administration are going to sacrifice the public welfare for short-term political manuevering. As a result, Jimmy Carter's willingness to speak the American public's revulsion toward Dick Cheney and the Bush administration is a welcome development.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney as a "disaster" for the country . . . who has had an excessive influence in setting foreign policy . . . He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world.
In many ways, Dick Cheney is a tragic figure. Cheney waited thirty years for his opportunity to enact his vision of unlimited presidential power and his ideas turned out to be just as disastrous now as they were during the Nixon years.
However, there really is little doubt that "Cheneyism" has been a disaster for the United States and its interests in the world--a disaster that will take a long time to recover from.
Folks on the right might argue that it's improper for Carter as an ex-president to criticize a sitting vice-president so harshly, especially during a time of war.
But ex-presidents Carter, Bill Clinton, and even George Bush I should have a duty to speak out more concerning the abuses and disasters of the current Bush administration, not less.
As I've observed many times in the past, the Bush administration is no longer a credible government and the United States really needs people to step into the void and speak with the (informal) authority of the public concerning issues of public importance.
I initially thought that Nancy Pelosi might be able to serve as a spokesperson for the public at large. But she wasn't willing to risk the next election to serve the public now.
Ultimately, it looks like all the major figures outside the Bush administration are going to sacrifice the public welfare for short-term political manuevering. As a result, Jimmy Carter's willingness to speak the American public's revulsion toward Dick Cheney and the Bush administration is a welcome development.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Smearkrieg No. 10--The Joy of Shooting Bambi
The dispute over the right-wing's attempt to smear Graeme Frost, the 13 year old boy who delivered the Democratic Party radio address on Bush's SCHIP veto a couple of weeks ago, have been all over the internet.
But you have to love this comment by right-wing blogger/Fox commentator Michelle Malkin.
For Malkin and the other smear artists of the right, it's all about the joy of shooting Bambi, of taking a 13 year old kid and pumping him full of lead, humiliating him within an inch of his life, or at the very least stealing his lunch money.
She loves it.
The more innocent or worthy the representative of a liberal position, the more joy that people like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter take in smearing them.
If you're an innocent kid like Graeme Frost, they'll attack your family. If you're a war hero like John Kerry or a Marine colonel like John Murtha, they'll get extra big kicks out of tearing into your military record.
That's why Michelle Malkin blames Democratic Senate staffers for her smear campaign. If they're going to put a kid out there, they should know that Malkin will take extra pleasure in smearing him. The Democrats just should have known.
What a great country!
Lucky the Virgin Mary wasn't a liberal. The smear-artists of the right would have asked a lot of tough questions about one of her sons and there would be no "Christian traditions" to defend.
But you have to love this comment by right-wing blogger/Fox commentator Michelle Malkin.
“When a family and Democrat political leaders drag a child down to Washington at 6 in the morning to read a script written by Senate Democrat staffers on a crusade to overturn a presidential veto, someone might have questions about the family’s claims. The newspapers don’t want to do their jobs. The vacuum is being filled. If you don’t want questions, don’t foist these children onto the public stage. Fight your battles like adults and stop hiding behind youngsters dragging around red wagons filled with your talking points.”
For Malkin and the other smear artists of the right, it's all about the joy of shooting Bambi, of taking a 13 year old kid and pumping him full of lead, humiliating him within an inch of his life, or at the very least stealing his lunch money.
She loves it.
The more innocent or worthy the representative of a liberal position, the more joy that people like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter take in smearing them.
If you're an innocent kid like Graeme Frost, they'll attack your family. If you're a war hero like John Kerry or a Marine colonel like John Murtha, they'll get extra big kicks out of tearing into your military record.
That's why Michelle Malkin blames Democratic Senate staffers for her smear campaign. If they're going to put a kid out there, they should know that Malkin will take extra pleasure in smearing him. The Democrats just should have known.
What a great country!
Lucky the Virgin Mary wasn't a liberal. The smear-artists of the right would have asked a lot of tough questions about one of her sons and there would be no "Christian traditions" to defend.
Monday, October 08, 2007
The Unwelcome Return of the Liberal Hawks
One unfortunate consequence of the stabilization in Anbar province is the return of "liberal hawks" like Michael O'Hanlon and Richard Cohen to the editorial pages of major newspapers. Here's Richard Cohen in the International Herald Tribune:
Cohen doesn't seem to understand that "almost everyone" (outside the neo-con dead enders) is certain that the invasion of Iraq failed because we actually made things even worse.
But I suppose the one thing that astonishes me above all is the apparent CERTAINTY of almost everyone about Iraq. Here’s a monster called Saddam Hussein (no “annoying thug” as L.K. Burnett suggests in comment 45), with a Stalinist personality cult, heading a Baath party that borrowed heavily from Nazi
totalitarian organization, sitting for decades at the head of a country he’s turned into a nighmarish realm of terror, populated by a circles within circles of cowed informants who make the Stasi look like a plaything.
Cohen doesn't seem to understand that "almost everyone" (outside the neo-con dead enders) is certain that the invasion of Iraq failed because we actually made things even worse.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Changing Standards for Landslides
Way back in the day, the right was crowing about what a big win Bush got in 2004 when he beat John Kerry by three points.
But times have changed.
Republicans are increasingly expecting to lose the presidential election in 2008 and lose big.
But they're also raising the rhetorical standards for landslides. Bush's three point win in 2004 was practically a landslide but even a fourteen point Hillary win could be easily dismissed.
According to Rep. Tom Cole, the chairman of the Congressional Republican Campaign Committee (via David Broder):
But times have changed.
Republicans are increasingly expecting to lose the presidential election in 2008 and lose big.
But they're also raising the rhetorical standards for landslides. Bush's three point win in 2004 was practically a landslide but even a fourteen point Hillary win could be easily dismissed.
According to Rep. Tom Cole, the chairman of the Congressional Republican Campaign Committee (via David Broder):
"That is no landslide election . . . The Republican nominee, whoever he is, wins at least 43, 44, 45 percent against her, and that gives us a base for congressional races.
I wouldn't dispute that the Republicans will still have a base in the South, Plains States, and rural areas after 2008. It's not like they're going to dry up and die.
But if Hillary wins 57-43, that will be a landslide.
That's also my very preliminary prediction for the final outcome.
In Addition: Glenn Greenwald brutalizes Broder for reporting Cole's views as though they were actually true.
Fred: The Legacy Candidate
There are a few things that are clear about the 2008 campaign even in the early stages. One thing coming into focus is that Fred Thompson is running as the Bush legacy candidate.
Like the Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004, Fred Thompson expects to get a lot of credit just for getting his lines straight. And here's some Fred Thompson lines from a positive review on National Review Online.
And that's exactly the point. Thompson's core constituency is people who are suspicious of too much knowledge, too much work, and too much involvement in politics.
Just like George Bush, "hard-working" Fred gives them what they want.
Like the Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004, Fred Thompson expects to get a lot of credit just for getting his lines straight. And here's some Fred Thompson lines from a positive review on National Review Online.
It doesn't take any policy expertise or experience to deliver these kinds of lines. A guy doesn't have to his homework to get it right. In fact, too much knowledge could mess him up. A guy like Thompson can be out of the loop for ten or fifteen years and still get it right.‘a government powerful enough to give anything to ya is powerful enough to take away everything you have.’
“I hear a lot of folks talking about ‘lost revenue’ when it comes to tax cuts. When you have tax cuts, the revenue’s not lost. The taxpayer knows where it is, it’s in his pocket!”
“We are locked into a mandatory spending cycle that’s going to bankrupt the country if we continue on the same pattern.”
“We are blessed to be living longer than ever before, and /we are blessed with the best health care in the world in this country. But we are turning our blessings into a curse for the next generation.”
And that's exactly the point. Thompson's core constituency is people who are suspicious of too much knowledge, too much work, and too much involvement in politics.
Just like George Bush, "hard-working" Fred gives them what they want.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
We'd Pay to NOT SEE Them
Signs of a forthcoming Republican apocalypse keep appearing. The religious right is thinking of running a third party candidate. Republican politicians are retiring like lemmings and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are drowning in money.
Right now, the smart money is on a Hillary presidency, 57 Democrats in the Senate, and a very healthy Democratic majority in the House.
So what happened to the Republicans? Speculation is rife. David Brooks thinks it's because the Republicans abandoned something called Burkean "dispositional" conservatism for "creedal conservativism."
But that doesn't make sense. A lot of "suburban, Midwestern, and business voters" are no longer conservative at all on social issues like gay rights, women's rights, race relations, and abortion. That's much of the reason why suburban voters in the North went for Gore by 20 points and why the inner suburbs around cities like Philadelphia have become Democratic enclaves.
The current "progress" of conservativism hasn't helped the Republican Party either. With conservatives becoming "anti-science" on evolution, and global warming, "anti-medicine" in cases like Terry Schiavo, and generally "anti-competence," the Democrats are looking like the party of knowledge, progress, and sanity to suburban voters.
This is what former Republican John Cole of Balloon Juice (via Glenn Greenwald) is picking up on.
But Cole ignores the failure of the war in Iraq. As long as the right-wing could use the war in Iraq to promote an image of themselves as the party of masculinity and toughness, they could trick voters into forgiving them for their many peculiarities and vote Republican.
With the failure of the war, the Republicans also lost the benefit of the doubt on social and economic issues. Where swing voters, independents, and moderates might once have tolerated the social bigotries, hypocrisies, corruption, and general weirdness of the right, now these kinds of voters are openly contemptuous of conservatives and conservatism.
How contemptuous?
John Cole gives us a good idea.
In other words, many moderates and swing voters are willing to "pay their own money" to not see the Republicans any more.
Is there a higher form of insult?
Right now, the smart money is on a Hillary presidency, 57 Democrats in the Senate, and a very healthy Democratic majority in the House.
So what happened to the Republicans? Speculation is rife. David Brooks thinks it's because the Republicans abandoned something called Burkean "dispositional" conservatism for "creedal conservativism."
But suburban, Midwestern and many business voters are dispositional conservatives more than creedal conservatives. They care about order, prudence and balanced budgets more than transformational leadership and perpetual tax cuts. It is among these groups that G.O.P. support is collapsing.
But that doesn't make sense. A lot of "suburban, Midwestern, and business voters" are no longer conservative at all on social issues like gay rights, women's rights, race relations, and abortion. That's much of the reason why suburban voters in the North went for Gore by 20 points and why the inner suburbs around cities like Philadelphia have become Democratic enclaves.
The current "progress" of conservativism hasn't helped the Republican Party either. With conservatives becoming "anti-science" on evolution, and global warming, "anti-medicine" in cases like Terry Schiavo, and generally "anti-competence," the Democrats are looking like the party of knowledge, progress, and sanity to suburban voters.
This is what former Republican John Cole of Balloon Juice (via Glenn Greenwald) is picking up on.
Seriously- what does the current Republican party stand for? Permanent war, fear, the nanny state, big spending, torture, execution on demand, complete paranoia regarding the media, control over your body, denial of evolution and outright rejection of science, AND ZOMG THEY ARE GONNA MAKE US WEAR BURKHAS, all the while demanding that in order to be a good American I have to spend most of
every damned day condemning half my fellow Americans as terrorist appeasers.
But Cole ignores the failure of the war in Iraq. As long as the right-wing could use the war in Iraq to promote an image of themselves as the party of masculinity and toughness, they could trick voters into forgiving them for their many peculiarities and vote Republican.
With the failure of the war, the Republicans also lost the benefit of the doubt on social and economic issues. Where swing voters, independents, and moderates might once have tolerated the social bigotries, hypocrisies, corruption, and general weirdness of the right, now these kinds of voters are openly contemptuous of conservatives and conservatism.
How contemptuous?
John Cole gives us a good idea.
The threat of higher taxes in the short term isn’t enough to keep me from voting out crazy people and voting for sane people with whom I merely disagree regarding policy. Hillarycare doesn’t scare me as much as Frank Gaffney having a line to the person with the nuclear football or Dobson and company crafting domestic policy.Cole's comment on taxes is the flip side of the old line where somone says that "I'd pay to see them play" in relation to sports teams and bands. In the case of the Republicans, Cole and other moderates and swing voters are willing to pay higher taxes if that means getting the Republicans out of office.
In other words, many moderates and swing voters are willing to "pay their own money" to not see the Republicans any more.
Is there a higher form of insult?
Friday, October 05, 2007
Our Future Inheritance
Yesterday, the New York Times revealed that the Bush administration approved secret memorandums justifying torture techniques (waterboarding, extreme sensory deprivation, etc.) that they had renounced in 2004.
The New York Times dug up this information in relation to the controversy about the Bush administration's use of illegal torture techniques on terror suspects. This is an extremely important issue and Glen Greenwald has a typically excellent post on the pervasive lawbreaking of the Bush administration in relation to interrogation policy here.
But the point I want to make is that the secret memos on torture are unlikely to be the end of the story. It's most likely that lots of confidential memos have been written to justify the illegal, corrupt, or inept practices of Bush administration appointees. For better or worse, there's no reason to think Bush appointees have been any more interested in following the law or adhering to their own procedures in managing the Department of Homeland Security or the EPA than the Justice Department. Little bombs like the secret torture memos unearthed by the Times may be set to go off all over the federal government.
As bad as the situation looks now, it's probably going to look a lot worse after a more complete picture of the Bush administration emerges.
And that more complete picture will begin to emerge if Bush is replaced by a Demcratic president in 2008.
. . . soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Dpartment issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was . . . an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency. The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.
The New York Times dug up this information in relation to the controversy about the Bush administration's use of illegal torture techniques on terror suspects. This is an extremely important issue and Glen Greenwald has a typically excellent post on the pervasive lawbreaking of the Bush administration in relation to interrogation policy here.
But the point I want to make is that the secret memos on torture are unlikely to be the end of the story. It's most likely that lots of confidential memos have been written to justify the illegal, corrupt, or inept practices of Bush administration appointees. For better or worse, there's no reason to think Bush appointees have been any more interested in following the law or adhering to their own procedures in managing the Department of Homeland Security or the EPA than the Justice Department. Little bombs like the secret torture memos unearthed by the Times may be set to go off all over the federal government.
As bad as the situation looks now, it's probably going to look a lot worse after a more complete picture of the Bush administration emerges.
And that more complete picture will begin to emerge if Bush is replaced by a Demcratic president in 2008.
The Bottom Line on Safety and Security
Troubled Torturers. Yesterday's article in the NY Times about the Bush administration's torture shenanigans prompted President Bush to make another one of his Orwellian "we do not torture" statements. It seems that the Bush administration engages in "humanitarian" waterboarding, extreme sensory deprivation, and extraordinary rendition to countries where suspects will be subjected to even more humanitarian treatment.
But the debate over torture brings us to a bottom line over the Bush administration in relation to national security. Here's Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto speaking today.
Like Fratto, I reflect on the ways in which "the safety and security of America" is being compromised every time I see these stories. But I view the Bush administration and the right-wing as the ones who are chipping away at American security. The Bush administration's war in Iraq, refusal to cooperate with other American political institutions, and relentless defiance of American and international law have all served to strengthen global terrorism and weaken American capacities for dealing with global terror.
At the same time, the political fights over the Bush administration's conduct of the war on terror have revealed that the right-wing is more of a threat to American society than the global jihadis. What has emerged is that the right-wing has little respect for American democracy and that major figures on the right like Newt Gingrich and Thomas Sowell are thinking about how democracy can be overthrown in this country. With their ideas of creating military tribunals for trying and imprisoning war opponents, activists on the right have even worked out a "constitutional" mechanism for ending American democracy as we know it.
It's impossible to separate the Bush administration from the right-wing. Efforts by the Bush administration to nullify laws against torture show the same contempt for American democracy that's shown by the chatter on the right about military tribunals, one-man rule in this country, or curtailing the First Amendment. They represent an effort to chip away at the democratic character of Amerian government and society.
And it strikes me that the Bush administration's and the right's efforts to strike at democracy represent a greater threat to this country than global terrorism.
But the debate over torture brings us to a bottom line over the Bush administration in relation to national security. Here's Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto speaking today.
It's troubling . . . I've had the awful responsibility to have to work with the New York Times and other news organizations on stories that involve the release of classified information. And I can tell you that every time I've dealt with any of these stories, I have felt that we have chipped away at the safety and security of America with the publication of this kind of information.
Like Fratto, I reflect on the ways in which "the safety and security of America" is being compromised every time I see these stories. But I view the Bush administration and the right-wing as the ones who are chipping away at American security. The Bush administration's war in Iraq, refusal to cooperate with other American political institutions, and relentless defiance of American and international law have all served to strengthen global terrorism and weaken American capacities for dealing with global terror.
At the same time, the political fights over the Bush administration's conduct of the war on terror have revealed that the right-wing is more of a threat to American society than the global jihadis. What has emerged is that the right-wing has little respect for American democracy and that major figures on the right like Newt Gingrich and Thomas Sowell are thinking about how democracy can be overthrown in this country. With their ideas of creating military tribunals for trying and imprisoning war opponents, activists on the right have even worked out a "constitutional" mechanism for ending American democracy as we know it.
It's impossible to separate the Bush administration from the right-wing. Efforts by the Bush administration to nullify laws against torture show the same contempt for American democracy that's shown by the chatter on the right about military tribunals, one-man rule in this country, or curtailing the First Amendment. They represent an effort to chip away at the democratic character of Amerian government and society.
And it strikes me that the Bush administration's and the right's efforts to strike at democracy represent a greater threat to this country than global terrorism.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Bad News for Hillary Supporters: Hillary at 53%
Yesterday, a Washington Post/ABC poll came out with Hillary at 53% and Obama at 20%. Most of the time, political candidates consider it to be really good news if they make that kind of big leap in the polls.
But I think 53% is more Trojan horse than gift horse for the Hillary campaign.
Of course, the Post/ABC poll might be an outlying poll. Hillary might still actually be in the low 40's. That's still a very strong lead even if it's not overwhelming.
If the numbers are real, they might be a sign that Hillary is peaking too soon. That's especially because Hillary's going to become more of a target for negative media coverage and right-wing smears the farther ahead she gets.
If Democrats start listening to the negativity, the numbers will go back down.
Being so far ahead also creates the likelihood of complacency, decreasing creativity, and lower energies as candidates and their staffs sit on their huge leads.
That can also bring the numbers back down.
Even worse, a huge lead in the Democratic primaries means that Hillary might not fully prepared for everything the Republicans are going to throw at her in the general election. Obama's failure to fight now means that Hillary's not going to be in fighting trim next July.
Given the stakes in the 2008 presidentiail election, that's very unfortunate.
But I think 53% is more Trojan horse than gift horse for the Hillary campaign.
Of course, the Post/ABC poll might be an outlying poll. Hillary might still actually be in the low 40's. That's still a very strong lead even if it's not overwhelming.
If the numbers are real, they might be a sign that Hillary is peaking too soon. That's especially because Hillary's going to become more of a target for negative media coverage and right-wing smears the farther ahead she gets.
If Democrats start listening to the negativity, the numbers will go back down.
Being so far ahead also creates the likelihood of complacency, decreasing creativity, and lower energies as candidates and their staffs sit on their huge leads.
That can also bring the numbers back down.
Even worse, a huge lead in the Democratic primaries means that Hillary might not fully prepared for everything the Republicans are going to throw at her in the general election. Obama's failure to fight now means that Hillary's not going to be in fighting trim next July.
Given the stakes in the 2008 presidentiail election, that's very unfortunate.
Cutting a Better Deal for Soldier Heroes
My good friends at Protein Wisdom insist on the value of right-wing irony. A good example of that kind of irony comes from the enthusiastic war-monger Robert Kaplan in today's Wall Street Journal online. What Kaplan is complaining about is the tendency of the media to "pity" American soldiers rather than lionize them as heroes.
I can see the battalion commander's complaint. In fact, there's relatively little coverage of day to day operations in Iraq outside ludicrous war-romantics like Michael Yon and his "al-Ameriki" schtick. When American troops are engaged with an enemy, they fight hard, fight effectively, and are almost always victorious. But the embedded reporters are gone, the romanticizing of military technology played out a long time ago, and most people became suspicious of heroism stories after the military lied about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch.
It's really too bad.
But Kaplan's engaged in a pity story himself. He's essentially asking people to feel sorry for soldiers because they are not being treated as heroes.
What an irony!
If the U. S. were a better society, we indeed would be treating soldiers as heroes. Everyday American soldiers are doing remarkably well despite the campaign of deception that brought the U. S. into Iraq, the incompetence of the Bush administration, and the overall failure of the mission.
In fact, however, we in the United States don't value people who aren't being successful RIGHT NOW and the military mission in Iraq has been a failure for at least three years. As a result, American soldiers are stuck in the same "pity" rut as single black mothers working multiple jobs, cancer patients, students getting through college despite working 40-50 hours a week, and people successfully fighting off depression, anxiety disorders, and other mental health problems.
I see lots of these folks in my job as a college professor and I'm sometimes so awestuck by the energy, talent, and commitment of some of my students that I end up hero-worshipping them even as I'm supposed to be acting as a role-model.
Another irony!
But the best that any of these kinds of folks can do in the mainstream media is to be portrayed as "victims" and pitied. Oh, maybe there's some token stories about "everyday heroes," but the the overwhelming focus of the media is on the wealthy, celebrities, rock stars, and the titans of business. People who have to be heroic to either get by or move one step forward are lucky to avoid being stigmatized as failures, losers, whores, and rednecks.
That's the pitiable reality.
American soldiers in Iraq want more respect from the media.
And that's fine.
But it's unfortunate that they'll only get that respect if America becomes a better society at home.
As one battalion commander complained to me, in words repeated by other soldiers and marines: "Has anyone noticed that we now have a volunteer Army? I'm a warrior. It's my job to fight." Every journalist has a different network of military contacts. Mine come at me with the following theme: We want to be admired for our technical proficiency--for what we do, not for what we suffer. We are not victims. We are privileged.
I can see the battalion commander's complaint. In fact, there's relatively little coverage of day to day operations in Iraq outside ludicrous war-romantics like Michael Yon and his "al-Ameriki" schtick. When American troops are engaged with an enemy, they fight hard, fight effectively, and are almost always victorious. But the embedded reporters are gone, the romanticizing of military technology played out a long time ago, and most people became suspicious of heroism stories after the military lied about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch.
It's really too bad.
But Kaplan's engaged in a pity story himself. He's essentially asking people to feel sorry for soldiers because they are not being treated as heroes.
What an irony!
If the U. S. were a better society, we indeed would be treating soldiers as heroes. Everyday American soldiers are doing remarkably well despite the campaign of deception that brought the U. S. into Iraq, the incompetence of the Bush administration, and the overall failure of the mission.
In fact, however, we in the United States don't value people who aren't being successful RIGHT NOW and the military mission in Iraq has been a failure for at least three years. As a result, American soldiers are stuck in the same "pity" rut as single black mothers working multiple jobs, cancer patients, students getting through college despite working 40-50 hours a week, and people successfully fighting off depression, anxiety disorders, and other mental health problems.
I see lots of these folks in my job as a college professor and I'm sometimes so awestuck by the energy, talent, and commitment of some of my students that I end up hero-worshipping them even as I'm supposed to be acting as a role-model.
Another irony!
But the best that any of these kinds of folks can do in the mainstream media is to be portrayed as "victims" and pitied. Oh, maybe there's some token stories about "everyday heroes," but the the overwhelming focus of the media is on the wealthy, celebrities, rock stars, and the titans of business. People who have to be heroic to either get by or move one step forward are lucky to avoid being stigmatized as failures, losers, whores, and rednecks.
That's the pitiable reality.
American soldiers in Iraq want more respect from the media.
And that's fine.
But it's unfortunate that they'll only get that respect if America becomes a better society at home.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
The Dominatrix Right--Exploring A Conservative Fantasy
What would a right-wing life be without fear? Of course, the primary conservative fear used to be fear of blacks and black skin, black diseases, black sexuality, and black talk. But the right has branched out over the years to luxuriate in the fear of gays, women, Hispanics, crime, pedophiles, their kids being kidnapped, secular humanism, communism, Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, and Hillary Clinton.
It goes without saying that fear is what makes life worth living for people on the right.
In fact, if the right has any kind of practical dictum at all, it's that "we have nothing to enjoy but our wonderful fears. "
This brings us to the fear du jour--fear of radical Islam--the idea, even the conviction, that radical muslims will be taking over the United States and introduce sharia law, make everybody convert to Islam, force everybody pray five times a day, and make "our women" wear burkas whenever they left the house.
The pervasive fear of radical Islam seems to derive from some statements that Osama bin Laden has made about destroying the West and forcing everyone to convert.
There seems to be an operant conditioning principle at work here: Osama speaks, conservatives fear.
Not that it takes the right much to be "afraid, very afraid" anyway.
Glenn Greenwald printed a stunning example of this kind of fear in his Salon blog yesterday. I'll quote at length.
I imagine this scenario brought Greenwald's correspondent more than a little pleasure. This person's imagined "terrorist" sounds more like a dominatrix than anything else as he holds a knife to Greenwald and makes him beg "to be spared" before slitting his throat. This kind of terrorism porn even has a connection to reality because it's fairly close to what happened to Danny Pearl when he was murdered in Pakistan.
When conservatives conjure up the "Coming Muslim Take-Over of America," they essentially envision terrorists holding a knife to the throat of all Americans and making us do their will. For some reason, they find this to be a really fascinating and exciting vision of their future.
But it's essentially a dominatrix-style pornography in which conservatives enjoy the thought of themselves and their fellow Americans being punished by our terrorist doms. We've been such bad boys and girls not to have supported the Bush administration.
Maybe this is why Ann Coulter is so popular on the right.
The next time you see a conservative, ask them if they're part of the "Dominatrix Right."
It goes without saying that fear is what makes life worth living for people on the right.
In fact, if the right has any kind of practical dictum at all, it's that "we have nothing to enjoy but our wonderful fears. "
This brings us to the fear du jour--fear of radical Islam--the idea, even the conviction, that radical muslims will be taking over the United States and introduce sharia law, make everybody convert to Islam, force everybody pray five times a day, and make "our women" wear burkas whenever they left the house.
The pervasive fear of radical Islam seems to derive from some statements that Osama bin Laden has made about destroying the West and forcing everyone to convert.
There seems to be an operant conditioning principle at work here: Osama speaks, conservatives fear.
Not that it takes the right much to be "afraid, very afraid" anyway.
Glenn Greenwald printed a stunning example of this kind of fear in his Salon blog yesterday. I'll quote at length.
Glenn -- just read your post about how we're all over-reacting to Islamic fundamentalism. How refreshing! I had no idea that our fears were so ill-founded. There I was, all set to actually believe the rhetoric of Al Qaeda and Iran and the countless video tapes of suicide bombers, not to mention the actual language of the Quran. In fact, I'd even begun to believe this poll, which says that quite a few American Muslims think that there is justification or strapping a bomb to yourself and walking into a mall . . . But who needs polls when I have Glenn Greenwald! Thank heavens we have you to balance all this with an argument that can basically be summed up as, "well none of these people who mocked Islam have been killed, so you all need to relax, OK?"
I picture this moment, Glenn, and it brings me a little chuckle. It's you, begging some terrorist for your life, pointing out all the wonderful things you wrote that undermined America's resolve to fight against Islamic terrorism. "Look," you say, pulling articles out of your pockets with shaking hands, "I have served you! Clearly this means that I deserve to be spared!" I won't tell you how it ends, Glenn.
I imagine this scenario brought Greenwald's correspondent more than a little pleasure. This person's imagined "terrorist" sounds more like a dominatrix than anything else as he holds a knife to Greenwald and makes him beg "to be spared" before slitting his throat. This kind of terrorism porn even has a connection to reality because it's fairly close to what happened to Danny Pearl when he was murdered in Pakistan.
When conservatives conjure up the "Coming Muslim Take-Over of America," they essentially envision terrorists holding a knife to the throat of all Americans and making us do their will. For some reason, they find this to be a really fascinating and exciting vision of their future.
But it's essentially a dominatrix-style pornography in which conservatives enjoy the thought of themselves and their fellow Americans being punished by our terrorist doms. We've been such bad boys and girls not to have supported the Bush administration.
Maybe this is why Ann Coulter is so popular on the right.
The next time you see a conservative, ask them if they're part of the "Dominatrix Right."
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Jonah Goldberg on Clarence Thomas
Jonah Goldberg has this notable passage on Clarence Thomas in an article entitled "Clarence Thomas' Great American Story" at RealClearPolitics.
As I stated in my last post, there are good reasons for empathy towards Thomas. Much as someone should ask "how would I do in battle" before condemning soldiers, we should ask "how would I have done during the heat of desegregation" before condemning Thomas.
But the story of Clarence Thomas is the farthest thing from "a tale of pride, determination, and independence." I see a lot more self-pity than "pride" or "determination" in Thomas' story
I also wonder about Thomas' purported "independence" from the "deadening influence of group-think."
What was the "group-think" that Thomas liberated himself from? In the final analysis, the idea that Thomas rejected was the hundred-year struggle for racial integration by generation on generation of African-Americans. Far from being deadening "group think," the struggle for racial equality had an overwhelming rightness and nobility to it. Thomas rejects "the grand theorists" of the Civil Rights Movement like MLK and Thurgood Marshall and also rejects the thousands of African-American activists whose courage and daring finally succeeded in opening all of American society to the talent and energy of black people. For Thomas, what the Civil Rights Movement largely meant was that he was impelled to become a pioneer of integration at places like Yale Law School. In fact, the success of civil rights activism created the imperative that young black men and women perform the very painful chore of taking up all the new opportunities within a larger American society that was still hostile to black people.
And Clarence Thomas hated the burden of desegregation, hated that he had been led to take up that burden, and has resented the Civil Rights Movement and the relentless black push for desegregation ever since.
Ultimately, Thomas turned his back on "the Great American Story" of his generation for the very "deadening" world of carping about integration and being a black poster boy for conservative opposition to the black community. He's been called an "Uncle Tom" but that's an overly-generous term for what Thomas became.
I haven't walked in Clarence Thomas' shoes. So I don't know how I would have responded to the same pressures. Who knows? Maybe I would have done the same thing.
One thing's for sure though. Clarence Thomas was on the wrong side of history, political morality, and common decency when he turned against the century-long struggle of African-Americans for civil rights.
And anybody else who would have made that turn would have been just as wrong-headed as Thomas.
Thomas survived, of course, and if his opponents had been able to read this book
they would have known he would. My Grandfather’s Son is a tale of pride, determination and independence — from the constraints of discrimination and the deadening influence of group-think.
As I stated in my last post, there are good reasons for empathy towards Thomas. Much as someone should ask "how would I do in battle" before condemning soldiers, we should ask "how would I have done during the heat of desegregation" before condemning Thomas.
But the story of Clarence Thomas is the farthest thing from "a tale of pride, determination, and independence." I see a lot more self-pity than "pride" or "determination" in Thomas' story
I also wonder about Thomas' purported "independence" from the "deadening influence of group-think."
What was the "group-think" that Thomas liberated himself from? In the final analysis, the idea that Thomas rejected was the hundred-year struggle for racial integration by generation on generation of African-Americans. Far from being deadening "group think," the struggle for racial equality had an overwhelming rightness and nobility to it. Thomas rejects "the grand theorists" of the Civil Rights Movement like MLK and Thurgood Marshall and also rejects the thousands of African-American activists whose courage and daring finally succeeded in opening all of American society to the talent and energy of black people. For Thomas, what the Civil Rights Movement largely meant was that he was impelled to become a pioneer of integration at places like Yale Law School. In fact, the success of civil rights activism created the imperative that young black men and women perform the very painful chore of taking up all the new opportunities within a larger American society that was still hostile to black people.
And Clarence Thomas hated the burden of desegregation, hated that he had been led to take up that burden, and has resented the Civil Rights Movement and the relentless black push for desegregation ever since.
Ultimately, Thomas turned his back on "the Great American Story" of his generation for the very "deadening" world of carping about integration and being a black poster boy for conservative opposition to the black community. He's been called an "Uncle Tom" but that's an overly-generous term for what Thomas became.
I haven't walked in Clarence Thomas' shoes. So I don't know how I would have responded to the same pressures. Who knows? Maybe I would have done the same thing.
One thing's for sure though. Clarence Thomas was on the wrong side of history, political morality, and common decency when he turned against the century-long struggle of African-Americans for civil rights.
And anybody else who would have made that turn would have been just as wrong-headed as Thomas.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Clarence Thomas: Preliminary
I would read Clarence Thomas' memoir if I had time but know I'm not going to have the time this semester.
But I think I'm going to do a couple of posts on it anyway.
One of my conservative students did a senior seminar paper last semester comparing Clarence Thomas to Thurgood Marshall. It was obvious from the student's materials that Marshall was an even greater man than I had been lead to believe while Thomas is a self-pitying, bitter kind of guy.
Certainly Thomas did not measure up to Marshall.
Having said that, I think it would be absurd to blame Thomas for not being a great man. How many great men or great women are there anyway? I have a considerable amount of self-esteem but I wouldn't measure up to Thurgood Marshall either.
And I don't particularly blame him for being a self-pitying, bitter kind of guy. From his long interview with ABC News, it seemed that Clarence Thomas' main problem was the integration era and the fact that he was one of the black people moving forward to integrate schools, colleges, offices, and political institutions.
Thomas was not the kind of guy who was suited to being a pioneer, to being the only black person or one of the only two black people in high school, college, and work settings. Being "stared at," being the target of racist insults, and being painfully self-conscious all the time about what people were thinking about him were enormous burdens.
And Thomas found no solace with other black people because he was just as painfully self-conscious about what wealthier or lighter-skinned black people thought of him.
As the black feminist bell hooks once wrote, "racism hurts." And for Clarence Thomas, every dimension of the American racial system hurt.
And the people that Thomas blamed for the pervasive pain he felt were the "grand theorists" of integration who took him and others like him out of the segregated communities--people like Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernethy, the liberal judges who pushed desegregation, and the white social elites who supported them.
They were all great men and Clarence Thomas believed that their schemes demanded much too much of bright but not extraordinary young men and women, men like Clarence Thomas.
Thomas would find the conservatives who were suspicious of integration for other reasons to be much more congenial than the people who had pushed him into the cannon's mouth of integration.
But my impression is that Clarence Thomas was pretty much a broken man for a several years before he was nominated for the Supreme Court.
But I think I'm going to do a couple of posts on it anyway.
One of my conservative students did a senior seminar paper last semester comparing Clarence Thomas to Thurgood Marshall. It was obvious from the student's materials that Marshall was an even greater man than I had been lead to believe while Thomas is a self-pitying, bitter kind of guy.
Certainly Thomas did not measure up to Marshall.
Having said that, I think it would be absurd to blame Thomas for not being a great man. How many great men or great women are there anyway? I have a considerable amount of self-esteem but I wouldn't measure up to Thurgood Marshall either.
And I don't particularly blame him for being a self-pitying, bitter kind of guy. From his long interview with ABC News, it seemed that Clarence Thomas' main problem was the integration era and the fact that he was one of the black people moving forward to integrate schools, colleges, offices, and political institutions.
Thomas was not the kind of guy who was suited to being a pioneer, to being the only black person or one of the only two black people in high school, college, and work settings. Being "stared at," being the target of racist insults, and being painfully self-conscious all the time about what people were thinking about him were enormous burdens.
And Thomas found no solace with other black people because he was just as painfully self-conscious about what wealthier or lighter-skinned black people thought of him.
As the black feminist bell hooks once wrote, "racism hurts." And for Clarence Thomas, every dimension of the American racial system hurt.
And the people that Thomas blamed for the pervasive pain he felt were the "grand theorists" of integration who took him and others like him out of the segregated communities--people like Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernethy, the liberal judges who pushed desegregation, and the white social elites who supported them.
They were all great men and Clarence Thomas believed that their schemes demanded much too much of bright but not extraordinary young men and women, men like Clarence Thomas.
Thomas would find the conservatives who were suspicious of integration for other reasons to be much more congenial than the people who had pushed him into the cannon's mouth of integration.
But my impression is that Clarence Thomas was pretty much a broken man for a several years before he was nominated for the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
