Something To (Really) Think About

This sums up the very reason I began blogging in the first place. Most people read and/or listen to ideas, not with an open mind, but with the purpose of defending their beliefs and ideologies.  Most tend to have a counter-argument cocked, loaded, and ready to pull the trigger on as soon as they finish giving their semi-attention to the topic at hand.  Just a little something for you to digest this Sunday morning before you tune into to your favorite weekly television political news roundup or head off to church (See: ”Why I’m Not A Democrat…or Republican” and “Ideology—Something On My Mind”).

Read More

Guns…Let’s Use Some Common Sense!

A couple of months ago, I wrote a piece ("Gun Control...No! Responsible Gun Control...Yes?") about the need for the rational regulation of guns; not one based on leftist fear-mongering or right-wing “any-gun-should-be-available-no-rules” insanity! My suggestion was that access to guns by qualified citizens (excluding non-felons, ex-felons, and crazy people) should be based where a citizen lives, and the proportion of threat to their environments. Under this regime, the citizens of shooting galleries like Chicago (my hometown) would not be prohibited from purchasing and owning weapons to defend themselves, while those who live in gated communities—where police protection is fairly effective—would not be allowed to own arsenals of military-style weapons…the conspiratorial perception of a “tyrannical government” notwithstanding.
Somewhere in the fight about gun rights, both sides have chucked all level of reason aside in validating their point-of-views. Take for example the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Most supporters of open-ended gun ownership love to invoke the Constitutional provision allowing Americans the means to protect themselves with guns. However, many also seem to forget that the Second Amendment was written during a time when the existential threat to American liberty was real, not imagined…and was written as such. In case those of you who use the Second Amendment to defend you “right” to gun ownership have forgotten, the text reads:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Despite the many ideological interpretations over the years, it would seem that the right to keep and maintain guns was based on the ability of the citizens to mobilize in the face of a threat to the union. Yes, that right was extended to gun ownership in times of relative peace, but those who ignore this fact also ignore the implication that gun ownership is not absolute; it can be regulated in much the same way as liquor consumption and voting by age. Also, saying that gun ownership is an absolute right also ignores that the U.S. Constitution also has other provisions, some of them far out of date. Consider the Third Amendment:

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The rights and provisions of the Constitution are supposed to be flexible to accommodate changing times, customs, and beliefs. If an Amendment that has no bearing on our daily life can be out of date, so possibly too can one we hold in such high esteem. The caveat here is that that defenders of the right to keep and bear arms have to be open to the flexibility of gun ownership…it is more of a privilege than a right, one which our government affords us and should be as flexible with the times as much as any law of the Constitution.
However, many on the left have allowed their fear of guns to shatter what little reason there is in crafting reasonable social policy not predicated on knee-jerk reactions. Consider what happened last week in at a Pennsylvania community’s elementary school.
A 5-year-old kindergartener was suspended for 10 days for “making a ‘terrorist threat’” using (insert gasp) a small, Hello Kitty automatic bubble blower loosely-shaped to resemble a gun. According to news reports, “The kindergartner…caught administrators' attention after suggesting she and a classmate should shoot each other with bubbles.”

Such idiotic policies are the administrative variation of mandatory sentencing in our public schools. “Zero-tolerance policies” leave no room for the application of common sense, of the individual judgments of those who are required to enforce such policies (just 2 weeks ago, I myself was headed to court with a client, and was turned back at a metal detector because my barely-an-inch-long fingernail clipper set off the device, and a brief lecture by guards about how such “weapons” were prohibited).
People should be allowed to own guns for protections, but the debate of gun ownership and regulation, where it intersects the debate between security and policy, seems to have been flooded with an incredible amount of anecdotes, bumper-sticker statements, knee-jerk reactions, and ideological rhetoric from both sides of the political aisle…and all devoid of reason, logic, clear-thinking, and/or common sense.  When I see such instances of irrational thinking passing as public discourse, or put into practice in the form of questionable policies, I have to arrogantly wonder whether or not I (and a few others) am/are the only sane sole(s) left in America?

(See also: "Sandy Hook, Guns, & Questions")

Read More

Does This Familiar? Spotting Lies & Weak Logic On The Campaign Trail, Conclusion

Politicians. In America, they are the epitome of contradiction…in every sense of the word. As a group, we tend to place them in an area of social value between used car salesman and sexual predator. They make grandiose promises, stretch the truth to the level of strained credibility, and seem to remember the value of the voter around only around election time. We all know this, but for some reason, we tend to favor one politician over another, simply because he or she shares—or validates—our particular ideological perspectives.
And in the rare instance where an individual actually seeks to enter the realm of politics with the intention of “changing the system,” that person invariably becomes drawn into the culture of privilege, the cycle of perpetually seeking re-election funds (while forgetting the voting electorate), and partnering up with Big Money…all to maintain their political positions. Even rarer, when an individual actually does work to avoid becoming a part of the political culture, we are quick to sling arrows and barbs at that person, simply because he/she doesn’t make the instantaneous changes we want them to, ignoring the fact that those beholden to the political status quo (i.e., political culture) are unyielding to the prospect of substantive systemic changes in the culture of business-as-usual, and simply will not allow it.
In seeking public office, politicians “reveal” perspectives, intentions, and policies of their opponents which, to be honest, insults the intelligence of the American electorate. Actually, what politicians tend to say about their opponents and their beliefs play into the subjective and willful ignorance the average voting American; they know we will not research beyond our preexisting, preconceived notions and/or beliefs. We tend to gravitate toward those politicians who support our beliefs rather than give us something to ponder.
We all know this, but we still play into this perennial sad comedy with all the predictability of tomorrow’s sunrise. And why should politician be straight with us, when we aren’t straight with ourselves? None of us wants to even consider that we are on the wrong side of a particular debate or policy. Knowing this, politicians continue doing what they do best…appeal to our sense of willful ignorance in relying on canned statements which validate what we already believe rather than what will actually make us think.
In part 1, I began reprinting a piece previously chronicled on National Public Radio (NPR), “A Guide To Spotting Pretzel Logic On The Campaign Trail” as a means of showcasing how We The People allow ourselves to be taken advantage of by politicians who manipulate our ignorance to their benefit by focusing on the stretches of truth exemplified by the current Presidential Election of 2012.

The NPR piece continues below:
*************************************************************************************

ARGUMENTUM AD LOGICAM, aka 'Straw man argument'

What it means: Falsely creating an overly simplistic or undesirable argument because it's easier to defeat than the real argument.

Why it works: "It basically works like an inoculation," Nelson says. "Just like a vaccine uses a weakened version of a virus to stimulate an immune response, you tell the person a weakened version of an argument so that when the real thing appears, they have an idea how to answer it. You explain someone's argument in a way that doesn't give it full strength, and then you knock it down."

Examples from the campaign trail:

Mitt Romney, July 18

[President Obama] said something ... which really reveals what he thinks about our country, about our people, about free enterprise, about freedom, about individual initiative, about America. ... I just want to say it exactly as he said it, speaking about small business and business of all kinds, he said this, 'If you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen.' "

The Take-Away: In his speech, Romney takes Obama's remark out of context to reduce a complex argument about the collective nature of success to a simple straw man, Clayton says. He adds: "So, he is characterizing the argument that Obama did make, but he's taking the worst possible, least relatable version of what Obama was saying and defeating that."

President Obama, Aug. 9

"We're certainly not going to follow Mr. Romney's lead and go back to the days when women didn't have control of their own health care choices."


The Take-Away: Obama hyperbolizes Romney's position, "making it sound like you're going back to the 1300s and that women would have no control over their health care choices whatsoever," Clayton says. "So, he's making the most dramatic, worst-case version of the argument. Then it's easy for him to make the case that his policies are better."

ARGUMENTUM AD TERROREM — 'Appeal to fear'

What it means: This is pretty self explanatory. It plays on someone's fear of a (real or imagined) undesirable consequence.

Why it works: "Fear motivates people, especially if they're already nervous," says Nelson. "If you've just lost your job or think you are going to lose your job and someone says, 'Things are going to get worse.' That will get your attention."

Examples from the campaign trail:

President Obama, Aug. 14


"Last week, we found out that Gov. Romney expects you, middle-class families, to pick up the tab for this big tax cut. ... [Economists say] Gov. Romney's tax plan would actually raise taxes on middle-class families with children by an average of $2,000."



The Take-Away: "He's basically playing off the fears of the middle class and saying Romney's going to saddle you with a larger and larger tax burden," Clayton notes.

Mitt Romney, May 28

"I wish I could tell you the world is safe today. It's not. Iran is rushing to become a nuclear nation. ... Pakistan is home to some 100 nuclear weapons. China's on the road to becoming a military superpower."


The Take-Away: "Not only are you telling your story, but you're trying to saddle your opponent with another narrative. So, the narrative you're trying to saddle Obama with is he's weak because he just wants to get along," Nelson says. "You're saying he's naive about the real threats and he's not minding the store."

*************************************************************************************
To be sure, government cannot solve every individual problem related to social and economic ills, but neither can the market. Our problems tend to be complex, begging complex solutions as well. The problem is that politics do not allow for substantive solutions of any kind as long as Americans continue to allow our own ignorance and inability to see beyond our beliefs to be manipulated by those individuals and groups seeking to secure their own political and/or economic interests.
I'm a firm believer in the power of education as a means of uplifting one's insight and perspective on the way the world works. As you ponder that thought, allow me to leave you with this:



If this offends you because you are an adherent to the thinking represented by these two individuals, then don't blame me...look inside yourself and ask if you are on the side of critical thinking!

Read More

Does This Familiar? Spotting Lies & Weak Logic On The Campaign Trail, Part 1

Some time ago, I posted what I felt to be an informative piece based on my observations explaining how and why people structure their particular political ideologies ("Our Political Ideologies Explained...").
Strictly speaking, there are two reasons why many Americans have such a difficult time trying to understand policy issues and their implications: (1) Politicians, when asked by reporters about a policies' particulars, tend to provide familiar programmed rhetoric, which amount canned answers spouting the party line; and (2) most Americans don't take the time to objectively (as opposed to subjectively--look for or at "facts" which support one's already presupposed beliefs) research issues. And as the latter reason is concerned, even when confronted with indisputable proof, people will reflexively question the "bias" of the research, or attack the bearer of the bad news.
Recently, National Public Radio (NPR) did a piece on the weak logic often employed in political campaigns, in particular the election campaign of 2012 for the office of the White House between President Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney ("A Guide To Spotting Pretzel Logic On The Campaign Trail"). More to the point, the piece focused on why such hole-ridden statements of non-thinking are absorbed as fact by Democratic- and Republican Party loyalists...without any objective (there's that nasty word again) fact-checking on the parts of would-be voters.
I thought the article was so informative that I decided to reprint it here, as a service to those rare few who would like to actually think beyond the campaign rhetoric of both sides, and let the facts--so to speak--speak for themselves.

***************************************************************************************

It's a good thing presidential campaigns aren't college debates because politicians routinely spout arguments on the stump (and in their ads) that would never pass muster on the university rostrum.

Campaigns are rife with logical fallacies aimed at whipping up voters and herding them to the polls. Some are deceptively difficult to recognize, while others are familiar but no less seductive.

"Fallacies are used all the time in campaigns," says Sam Nelson, director of forensics at Cornell University's school of Industrial and Labor Relations.

"Human beings are busy. We have all kinds of information around us all the time, we don't have time to logically think through every argument, so we're looking for short cuts," Nelson says. "The issue is whether you can recognize these short cuts that are really fallacies and avoid falling for them."


As we head into the final months before November elections — with party convention bluster, brutal ad wars and debate posturing — Americans will almost certainly be exposed to a lot more pretzel logic. So with the help of Cornell's Nelson and Storey Clayton, a debate coach for Rutgers University Debate Union, here's an election-season primer to help people at home spot the top five logical fallacies so far in this year's presidential campaign. The Latin is optional.

ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM — 'Appeal to Authority'

What it means: There's nothing like name-dropping a Founding Father, a former U.S. president or a Nobel laureate to boost your argument. But that still doesn't change the substance of the argument.

Why it works: "It's the devil we know as opposed to something new, which we've never tried," Nelson says. "There's always risk in change. Some people are big risk takers, but most people seek safety."

Examples from the campaign trail:

Mitt Romney, July 29
"Ronald Reagan was one of our great foreign policy presidents. He did not come from the Senate. He did not come from the foreign policy world. He was a governor."

The Take-Away: "As Reagan's presidency has grown more distant, his star has sort of grown. He's a very appealing authority figure," Clayton says.





President Obama, Aug. 1
"You do not have to take my word for it. Just today, an independent, nonpartisan organization ran all the numbers on Gov. Romney's plan. This wasn't my staff. This wasn't something we did. An independent group ran the numbers."

The Take-Away: "This is a shortcut for most citizens who aren't willing to do the hard policy analysis. Obama is saying these people did the work so you don't have to," Nelson says.

POST HOC ERGO PROPER HOC — 'After this, therefore because of this'

What it means: The argument attempts to turn simple correlation into false or questionable causation. A textbook example: Because the birds sing every morning before the sun rises, the birds' singing causes the sun to rise.

Why it works: "It's a very appealing, intuitive fallacy," Clayton says. "A lot of the arguments that people make around presidential campaigns, for example, are essentially drawing the inference that whatever happened in one's time in office is their responsibility, whether or not they were actually responsible."

Examples from the campaign trail:

Mitt Romney, Aug. 1
We have fewer jobs under President Obama. Then there's unemployed and underemployed. That's gone up, that's in red, because that's a bad direction. Then we have the unemployment rate, that's bad too, that's why that's in red."



The Take-Away: "What you're trying to do in a presidential campaign is take relatively complex issues that there's a lot of division on and simplify it so that everyone understands what you're trying to say," Nelson says. "Everyone understands the idea of a report card. Holding it up visually even makes it better. Now, is that report card based on reliable information? We don't know."

Ex-Steel Plant Worker Joe Soptic, Speaking In Obama-Affiliated PAC Priorities USA Ad
"When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my health care. My family lost their health care. A short time after that, my wife became ill. ... She passed away in 22 days."



The Take-Away: "Someone responsible for a business is not necessarily responsible for every single decision or every single aspect that's made within that business," Clayton says. "But that's exactly what this ad is trying to argue. It's a classic example of giving someone responsibility over foreseeing every possible effect or every possible outcome."

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM — 'Argument to the man'

What it means: Anyone who's ever been verbally taunted or bullied in a schoolyard is familiar with argumentum ad hominem — basically a fancy debate term for name-calling. Its purpose, like that of all fallacies, is to divert attention away from substantive arguments.

Why it works: "It short-circuits the thinking part of your brain and makes you think, 'This guy's an idiot,' " says Rutgers University's Clayton.

Nelson of Cornell agrees, saying ad hominems are "funny and memorable" and that the person launching one often benefits from being perceived as a fighter. "It appeals to aspects of American culture that we got on the schoolyard and we still have when we're adults," he says.

The Take-Away: "These examples basically reduce everything to name calling," Clayton says. "They cut through the logic and all the rational arguments."

Examples from the campaign trail:

President Obama, Aug. 6



Gov. Romney "would ask the middle class to pay more in taxes to give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than $3 million a year. It's like Robin Hood in reverse. It's Romney Hood."

Mitt Romney, Aug. 7


"We've been watching the president say a lot of things about me and my policies, and they're just not right. And if I were to coin a term, it would be 'Obamaloney.' "

Needless to say, that in the realm of election politics, there are so many more logical fallacies, little white lies, structured inaccuracies, and outright lies, that it's easy to understand why Americans would rather spout the party line and anecdotal "proofs" than spend the major effort it would take to search out the facts.

To Be Continued...

Read More

Let's Talk About Race...Again! (...or, "Get Ready To Be Pi**ed Off...Again!")

Allow me to lay the foundation. I’m an adherent to the politics (and thinking) of pragmatism. This is to say that I cannot abide by dogmatic- or emotional-based thinking. I shun it. It’s as much as abhorrence to me as stupidity and emotionally-based thinking. As such, I believe that public—and in most cases, individual—policy should be made based on what’s in the general interests of those involved, and not based on some narrow ideology…whether liberal, conservative, libertarian, religious, socialist, or whatever (with the acknowledgement that on occasion, a policy may originate from and/or be a platform of one of these traditions of thinking). I extend the following examples:

-The taking of a human life is wrong, whether its an individual decision, such as in the case of abortion, or by the state-sanctioned taking of a life in the case of the death penalty (neither of which addresses the personal or societal issues they stem from).

-Gun ownership should not be restricted among qualified and reasonable individuals (i.e., without criminal/psychological records or unsavory intentions). Personally I wouldn't feel safe living in a house without a gun to defend myself. Simply put, the police cannot be everywhere, nor can they always prevent crime.

-Government cannot solve every problem. And neither can the Free Market.

-There is no Constitutional provision which says that America must be a Capitalist/Free Market society...that's based solely on tradition.

-O.J. did it (Mark Fuhrman's racism not withstanding).

-Religion has no place in public policy (although there may some influence based on the level of tradition it has on a particular policy).

-Our government spends too much. So too do individuals; neither seems to have a sense of what it means to work within a budget, or save for a rainy day.

-People need affordable health care, not some ideological preservation of “American values." And simply put, 230 plus years of medical services being another commodity of the market economy, and an exploding amount of health care spending as a percentage as a part of our Gross Domestic Product proves that the Free Market is not wholly up to the task.

-Based on reason and a passing knowledge of history, there is no way that anyone—outside of an emotional argument—could have concluded that the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution, in their wildest dreams, have imagined or even anticipated the reality that two adults of the same sex would want to ever get married, thus negating a “Constitutional Right” for them to do so (this is not to say that gay people don’t merit the same legal rights and/or protections against discrimination and persecution that all other Americans have, because they do).

I felt it necessary to establish the thinking behind this post. It is not about beliefs, emotions, or ideology, neither yours or mine. Policy should be based on what people need, not some ideological dogma...not reason, not passions. Setting the parameters is a way of heading off the accusations that I know are bound to come when one reads this; now you know that accusations of "Conservative," Liberal," "Fascist," "racist," or whatever are not going to fly. And now my rant.

I am an African-American.

And race is still an issue in America.

Given scope of issues in the news recently, once again I feel compelled to bring a little objective sanity into an otherwise contentious discourse (or lack thereof).

African-Americans

Although African-Americans have a right to be angry over last month’s shooting death of 16-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, every American should not only be just as angry but in the mood to engage in deep introspection. This includes African-Americans.
For African-Americans, such outrage should be a daily occurrence. Throughout many urban areas, we see or read about killings of children every bit as tragic Trayvon’s, almost on a daily basis. Maybe if Americans were to exhibit as much outrage over these murders, maybe we could make an impact. But sadly, most Americans—especially African-Americans—have adopted a level of fatalism with regard to life in the ‘hood. Many of us have come to see the senseless death of children as part of our daily existence.
Yes, there are instances of organized protests and candlelight vigils in these areas whenever there is a particularly brutal or senseless murder of an innocent occurs, but in general all such murders are senseless. If traditionally recognized “black leaders” such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were as motivated to travel around the country and address the deaths of young black children who are victimized by similar violence almost daily as they are at appearing at higher-profile murders, they would soon have to be hospitalized for exhaustion. And the lack of even acknowledgment from black conservatives speaks for itself; it gives the appearance that it’s not even a concern for them.
As a matter of priorities, black leaders—both locally- and nationally-recognized leaders—should be as quick to organize and shame those criminal elements in black communities who would engage in the same level of unreasonable behavior as George Zimmerman.
Yes, there is an acknowledgement that revealing the identities of perpetrators of such violence on black children may result in violent reprisals against would-be responsible individuals, the “don’t snitch” mentality which feeds this insanity needs to be eradicated See: "Stop (Not) Snitching! Part 1" and "Stop (Not) Snitching! Part 2").
Black parents need to be more responsible and not validate such counter-productive thinking. They need to be even more of an influence in the lives of their children than their children’ friends.
Black mothers and relatives need to treat their hearts like the enemy. If black-on-black murder is to stop, blood relationships can no longer be allowed to influence blood allegiances. If these individuals know that their relatives are responsible for the murders of young black children, they should be not only obligated but pressured to turn them into the authorities. Such behavior needs to be shamed like the community offense and threat that it is.
Black churches, and in particular black clergy need to do more than, in the words of the late great James Brown, “talking loud and saying nothing.”
More professional police officers are needed in communities where getting to know the people who reside there is more of a tactic than profiling those who live there. Working relationships with organized groups are needed.
If you want a more radical solution, I would propose that responsible black people arm themselves and start patrolling the streets in groups, and enforcing order. The Black Panthers did it in the 1960s and early 70s. Perhaps the “New Black Panthers” would be more constructive in redirecting their anger into the black community and threaten those who would disrupt the lives of law-abiding black citizens instead of putting a monetary bounty on the head of Trayvon Martin’s killer, or shouting to the rooftops how they “hate Whitey!” (See: "New Black Panther Leader Arrested as Group Sets Bounty in Florida Shooting"). Maybe if African-Americans were just as willing to patrol their communities with the same fervor of George Zimmerman, then maybe Trayvon Martin’s murder could be placed within the context of an abhorrent single instance instead of another senseless taking of a young black life. Maybe black child murders need to be the ones living in fear for a change...

White-Americans

No, soul-searching is not just for blacks. White American thinking with regard to race is something of mystery, not just for myself, but for most blacks.
But before I make my points, allow me to say that I like President Obama. I admire his intelligence, his cool-under-pressure-demeanor, and his desire to want the best for all Americans. Is he perfect? Of course not…and no, I don’t agree with every policy he proposes or enacts. Among the policies I have issues with was his decision to involve America militarily in what was essentially an internal matter of Libya. I don’t agree that enhanced interrogation techniques employed against suspected and confirmed terrorists should be banned or discouraged (when at war, fear is every bit an option as any other when it comes to matters of security…especially against foes who are willing to die for their cause anyway). And I don’t agree that America should have closed down prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay (enemies willing to die to inflict harm on Americans need something to fear). But I still like him. He means well.
However, a great many whites do not—or are not able to—view their opposition to (seemingly) every policy proposed or enacted by Obama, our nation’s first African-American president as being problematic, especially in regards to race relations. Indeed, some of these individuals have successfully managed to convince themselves that their opposition to policies such as health care reform is nothing more than ideological differences. And while any difference of agreement is not meant to imply that the President should be given a “pass” with regard to his policies being scrutinized, make no mistake about it; much of this opposition is just a proxy for racial-based animosity.
Without question, President Obama is the most disrespected American president since Abraham Lincoln…an ironic observation considering that many of those who opposed Lincoln’s policies did so based on their racial animus also. One would be hard-pressed to find a president in recent memory that has had his credibility assailed in the most non-traditionally disrespectful of manners—remember South Carolina’s conservative Republican Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst, “You Lie!” from the president’s 2009 address in front of Congress (yes, there have been occasional “boos” or jeers from other Congressmen toward other presidential addresses, but nothing in the records like Wilson’s)? Then there was that famous picture of Republican Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer pointing her finger in the face of the president of the United States. Simply put, if these individuals had tried that with most other African-Americans of lesser stations, their actions would have rated an immediate (and probably illegal) response. And then there are the thousands of unflattering caricatures of the president meant to (ostensibly) mock his policies, but in many cases, amount to attacks on Obama’s ethnic heritage, without appearing as such.

Aside from the caricatures, President Obama has had nearly every aspect of his life either challenged or impugned in ways that white presidents have rarely experienced. Despite long-ago revealed evidence proving otherwise, many people still continue to think that the president’s birth certificate is a forgery. And of course, those willing to believe such paranoid insanity don’t offer an alternative birth certificate showing his “true” birthplace (hint birthers: instead of trying to prove the president’s birth certificate is a “forgery,” try providing a birth certificate from Kenya…it would go a long ways to proving your assertions. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to produce one). Many Americans also still continue to believe that Obama is a Muslim partially because non-Anglo name, despite the fact that he had to distance himself shortly after taking office from the church of Chicago Pastor Jeremiah Wright…a Christian pastor!
President Obama is also the most threatened American president in memory. He's the former presidential candidate who's required the earliest Secret Service protection, and also the most. Please don't tell me this all about "ideological differences."
And sadly, the issues surround the president’s legislative Pièce de résistance, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—health care reform—has given white xenophobes a great policy issue to mask their racial animus toward Obama. We see this most often in how they accuse him of being a “socialist,” which for many is a proxy term for the “N-Word.” More so, they mask their fears and racial apprehensions behind a paranoid fear that health care reform someone is a “threat to individual liberties.” Really? In reality, when have whites in America ever had their individual liberties “threatened” on a wholesale level? On the other hand, history showcases many instances where government entities have actually—not implied—to not only threaten the lives and livelihoods of African-Americans, but done so.
Shall I cite how Southern states conspired to keep blacks from enacting their right to vote, to be represented in the South up until the early 1970s? How about the instances in American history where entire black towns were wiped off the map due to racist mobs because local government’s complicity in refusing to intervene (or because of government intervention)? The Greenwood district of Tulsa during the May 1921 race riots? The Rosewood Massacre of 1923? How about the various gun control laws that were enacted when blacks opted to (legally) pick up weapons and defend themselves against lynchings in the South and official abuse by authorities elsewhere back in the 1960s? The upshot is that whites possess a phantom fear of having their liberties threatened (that health care reform is supposed to do) in a way that has never happened to them on the same scale in which blacks have experienced them. So where does such fear and paranoia stem from? From the fact that an African-American occupies the Oval Office, and their intolerance of that fact. The health care debate is just a convenient vehicle for many whites to voice this point without having to be vocal about it in the way they would like.
Think about it this way: Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are seen as “race baiters” by many whites, who invariably (and ironically) do not see the same tactic being employed by white politicians who pander to white suburban fears. In much the same way, Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum recently made subtle racial innuendoes pandering to these white fears:

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money" (Rick Santorum at a campaign stop in Sioux City, Iowa, January 1, 2012).

“I will go to the NAACP convention, and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps” (Newt Gingrich at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, January 5, 2012).


These are the same white suburban paranoid fears which caused George Zimmerman to carry a weapon whereas many black neighborhood watch volunteers—who operate in far worse neighborhoods than Zimmerman’s—leading to the death of Trayvon Martin.
These are the reasons that radio and television demagogues like Rush and Glen can surreptitiously slide in a subtly but racially-insensitive remark and not be called on it; it takes something more blatant, such as calling a law school student “a slut” before people react.
Yes, both black and white America has some serious soul-searching to to. Sadly, it was needed before Trayvon Martin was killed, and it will no doubt be needed long after.

Read More