I'll Think of a Catchy Title Later

A friend asked me to share some thoughts on race in wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting; these are those.  

It has been half a century since the primary struggle for racial equality was at its height.  Unlike many political issues that still confound and divide us, this primary struggle has been ended.  Overt racial discrimination is illegal, is generally recognized as immoral, and today it is the exception, rather than the rule.

However, issues of racial equality continue to echo in our time.  In some ways, our society remains racist, but has changed its vocabulary to carefully avoid that label.  We discuss the problems of urban youth, underprivileged youth, gang members, high-risk youth, ethnic communities, and racially diverse neighborhoods; what we mean, in many cases, is black.

Even that word, black, has become tainted.  In some circles one must carefully say “African-American,” as though the subject just arrived from Cameroon.  We don’t trouble ourselves about the distinction for white people; we are just white, not “Dutch-American,” or “Caucasian-American.”  It is lost on many people that by avoiding one word while embracing the other, we are underscoring that just-under-the-surface idea that there is something wrong about being black.

What we have become is a culture of racial code-words.  Many of us still hold prejudices, but we feel constrained from overtly expressing them.

When the story broke nationally this year about the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, this strange racial paradigm was on full display.  The shooter described Trayvon as looking suspicious, and “up to no good.”  He later told police that he felt threatened, even though Trayvon was much smaller than him, and unarmed (Skittles are not commonly used as weapons).

In code, Zimmerman was revealing that his suspicions were aroused by the presence of a young black walking around this “non-diverse” neighborhood.  The media focus on Trayvon’s attire- a black hoodie- shows our willingness to immediately find a symbol that is more associated with black than white culture, and hold it up for partial culpability.

I was particularly intrigued by Geraldo Rivera’s comment that black parents should not allow their children to go out in public wearing hoodies, since they might be associated with, well, hoodlums (in fact, there is no etymological association, as “hoodlum” is derived from a Bavarian word for “ragamuffin”).  It struck me that this is dangerously close to telling rape victims that they are partly to blame for wearing enticing attire.

It is a credit to our society and our national discourse that this crime, which was not overtly about race, has been discussed in the context of race and prejudice.  CNN audio-enhancement technology notwithstanding, there were no immediate indications that race played an obvious role in the shooting, but our media and our discourse saw right through that and quickly reached the deeper issue.  It is one that merits discussion.

We do have a problem with racism in this country, and it is related to the long echo of inequality.  One statistic often raised in support of racial profiling is the higher occurrence of crimes among members of the black community.  This oft-quoted statistic has to do with economics, and the long legacy of denied opportunity, and not some inherently-flawed characteristic associated with the black race.  If the races started on an equal footing, those statistics simply would not exist.

But, we did not.  Just a generation ago the opportunities available to black families and white families were curtailed by law, by custom, and by society writ large.  We cannot suddenly level the playing field and assume that we have undone the adverse effects of centuries of discrimination.

If there are inequalities in our crime rates, we need to uncover their cause and work towards their eradication, rather than focusing our suspicions on members of a suspect race.  Calling Zimmerman a racist for his behavior as a community watchman may be extreme, but the shoe certainly seems to fit.

-Andrew

If Obama loses to Mitt Romney this November, all is not lost

Now that Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee for the Republicans, our media and news services will quickly pivot into their tradition of horse-race, he-said, she-said coverage, and all early indications suggest that this will be a closer contest than 2008.

Of course, they also said it would be a close contest in 2008…

So, for those of us who keep up with politics and follow elections closely, the season of worry and speculation has arrived.  While I remain confident that Obama will be re-elected, there is a small, dark voice in the back of my head that asks the fatal question, “what if Romney wins?”

With my internet malfunctioning and a few hours to think that one through, I arrived at a surprising answer:

It really won’t be so bad.

Now, let me briefly lay my political proclivities on the table, so you will understand where I’m coming from:  I’m a moderate Democrat, fiercely liberal on social issues, moderate-to-conservative on economic issues, and in a pinch I will vote my social issues.  I believe in universal, single-payer health care, gay marriage, and student loan forgiveness.

In other words, I’m a mainstream Democrat, with a few issues in the minority; I don’t change my mind on important issues if I learn that 60% of poll respondents disagree.

And THAT is precisely why I don’t fear a Romney presidency.  If elected, he will govern from the exact center on every important issue, and if something he believes strongly is opposed by 51% of us, he will decide to believe something else.

In many ways, Mitt Romney is Bill Clinton 2.0.  Clinton was rightfully criticized for triangulation; he would stake his claim to policy issues by finding that sweet spot, where a solid majority would be with him in most cases.  However, his was a static triangulation; when his majority support collapsed over health care, he still pursued it, and did not change his views to reflect the new majority.  He was a gambler, and he usually won, though he sometimes lost.

Romney has taken this approach to issues one step further.  On many issues that matter, he has changed his views depending on the electorate he faced, or the majority he sought to persuade.  Like Clinton, he does not display the strong leadership characteristics of Reagan or Bush II: he leads from behind, and like a presidential cab driver he will take the American people wherever it is they tell him to go.

It is hard to fault Romney for this approach, as it is the only way he could navigate the political path his ambition compels him to follow.  Running for governor in Massachusetts, he had to be a liberal, or he would have been trounced at the polls.  At the time he described himself as a progressive.  As a Republican primary candidate in 2008 and 2012, he switched sharply to the right, describing himself as “severely conservative.”    Now, as we enter a general election in which a moderate president faces a moderate electorate, one can predict that Romney will re-define himself with an Etch-a-Sketch shake towards the middle.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m still strongly supporting Obama, and believe he will be even more effective in his second term.  I am also confident that he will win.  However, it is somewhat reassuring to know that the alternative is not another Bush, but another Clinton.

-Andrew

Exploring the merits of class warfare

When the Occupy Wall Street movement began to receive widespread media attention, its organizers and participants were accused by many on the right of engaging in “class warfare.”  This charge has been leveled against Democratic presidents, progressive tax reform proposals, and even get-out-the-vote initiatives.

The connotation of this charge is that currently, the classes are at peace, and any attempt to radically upset the balance of economic power on behalf of the lower and middle classes is an unfair, and unprovoked, attack on the wealthy.

However, by simply looking at the economic trends over the past thirty years, you can see that the wealthy have been conducting a rather one-sided form of class warfare for decades, and they are winning big.

I want to point out four trends that, taken together, demonstrate the extent and success of this war by the wealthy.

-The wealthy are paying much less in taxes than they did thirty years ago.  How much less?  The top rate has fallen from 70% to 35%.  Moreover, much upper class income is in the form of capital gains, taxed at only 15%.  The wealthy have used their political influence during the 1980s and the first decade of this century to dramatically reduce their personal contribution to the government.

-Despite the doubling of the US economy over the past three decades, wages have remained flat, if adjusted for inflation.  This means the masses’ purchasing power has not improved.  In recent years, we have maintained a higher standard of living mostly due to borrowing, but as credit lines have dried up, most people have had to reduce their lifestyle, some dramatically.  The same is not true of the wealthy; the top 1% now make 20% of the total income in our country.

-One result of the breakdown in our tax distribution and income distribution has been the concentration of wealth.  40% of our nation’s wealth is in the hands of 1% of its population.  Of all the data and statistics out there, I find this to be the most gut-wrenching.  99% of us have only 60% of our nation’s wealth.  Scary.

-Finally, as the result of our tax policies skewed towards protecting the wealthy, government services are contracting.  Schools are underfunded, especially at the university level.  The result is high tuition, often funded by (you guessed it!) student loans.  Our government cannot solve its fiscal deficit because half of our politicians will not consider any proposal that increases taxes, under any circumstances.

The middle class today is worse off than it was in 1980.  We are told that the government must spend less, and that we cannot rely on it for vital services, such as infrastructure or health care.  We are pitted against each other any time a new revenue-generating proposal is floated in Washington- the “no new taxes” line in the sand is as deep and potent as ever.  We are given distracting wedge issues, usually related to social policy, to keep the focus away from the blatant inequity in our nation’s wealth and income.

Most troubling of all, we are told that our country is becoming poor, and weak, and is unable to solve its fiscal problems.  We are told that we will soon be surpassed by other superpowers, and that our government is the problem, not the solution.  These assertions are, utterly and demonstrably, bullshit.

The wealthiest among us are doing pretty well for themselves, and should be asked to bear a fairer share of the costs of running a first-class nation.  We can afford to conduct the cutting-edge research we need to remain a world leader.  We can afford to educate our citizens.  We can afford the infrastructure we need to transition into the 21st century.  We can afford to provide everyone, no matter how wealthy or poor, with universal health care when they get sick, preventative care to prevent illness and disease, and medication when necessary.

The only thing holding us back is a small minority, holding a tremendous bulk of our nation’s treasure, and exercising a disproportionate amount of influence over our country’s political process.   The super-rich need to contribute their fair share, and help us climb out of our economic trouble by providing the money needed for real stimulus.  This is not socialism; it is fair, necessary, and fitting to a country ostensibly governed by and for the people.

-Andrew

Wherein I express my disgust with the modern cable industry.  

In a free economy, there is a persistent theory that competition drives innovation, controls prices, and generally leads to a better product or service for the consumer.  Ordinarily, this is because if a company charges too much, doesn’t offer the product/service in an effective way, or limits consumer options, people will shop elsewhere.  Even better, if a company comes along with an improvement on the product or service, they have a chance to win market share.   This theory completely breaks down when there is a lack of competition, and becomes completely irrelevant in a monopoly.

..which brings me to the subject of this thinly-veiled rant, Comcast.  Having lived on both sides of the country, however, I would imagine you can simply replace “Comcast” with the name of your local cable monopoly, as these practices are widespread.

At the outset, I want to note that Comcast is a monopoly, and has no competition in the cable industry here.  While they have television competition from satellite providers, phone competition from phone service providers, and internet competition from DSL, they are not competing on a level field.  Cable is the best and fastest way to deliver all of these services, satellite-television fanboys be damned.  And in this, there is no competition.

If Comcast were operating in a competitive market, they would lose customers for a variety of reasons.  Their service is spotty, their prices are high, and they do not offer flexible options for purchasing their services.  Moreover, their pricing scheme is absurd.

When a new customer signs up for cable service with Comcast, they are given a low “introductory” rate.  This typically lasts for six months.  After that, the bill can double, no joke.  What most people “in the know” do is wait until their introductory package rate ends, then call and threaten to cancel; this prompts the overseas customer service personnel to offer a new “introductory” rate for six more months.  Rinse, wash, repeat.  This model penalizes people for losing track of their term, and most people, myself included, only make the “threatening to cancel” call after receiving at least one large bill.

The options available to customers are incredibly constricted, as illustrated by this quick anecdote from last year’s basketball season.  My alma mater, the University of Kentucky Wildcats, were playing a rivalry game, and I had a free afternoon.  Since this was not a part of my “standard” three million channels, I figured I would have to pay-per-view it.  When I called Comcast, they told me that in order to watch the game, I would need to sign up for the “all access college pass,” or some such nonsense, for a price of $149, which would give me access to every single game televised anywhere in the country, all season long.  That was the only option.  All, or none.

That example is particularly interesting when you consider how cable works.  The provider does not pay more money per viewer; all the content has already been purchased, they simply gate-keep some users from viewing certain programming.  With a willing customer ready to shell out a few bucks for a single out-of-package program, a competitive market would insist upon reasonable pricing.

I recognize that there is a major hurdle in de-monopolizing the cable industry: it relies on infrastructure that runs into most homes in American cities.  Somebody has to own and maintain the lines.  In this regard, they are like power companies.  One can imagine a cable district, a quasi-governmental unit set up to operate with high efficiency, in a non-profit manner.  More plausibly, the cable providers should be more heavily regulated to ensure that they are offering customers more choices than the six-menu-option pricing scheme they have today, and that their profit margins are kept in check.

It is my sincerest hope that wireless technology will advance to the point of rendering reliance on cable obsolete.  I relish the idea of being un-tethered from Comcast, Insight, or any other cable monopoly.

~Andrew

Wherein I explain the basis for my views on gay rights, and why this issue is different than most other political issues of our day

During my final year as an undergraduate, I had an experience that has deeply affected my view on social politics.  At the time, it immediately reinforced my position on one particular issue, but over time my reaction to this incident has colored my view on many political debates, and my political outlook more broadly.  I will be the first to admit my bias, and I am biased against certain conservative religious activists.  This story will explain why.

I was fortunate in the Spring of 2004 to secure an internship with my state senator, Ernesto Scorsone.  Scorsone represented the northern half of Lexington in the Kentucky Senate, and was viewed as a liberal member of the caucus.  The job was intensive, frenetic, and endlessly satisfying for a 21 year old with boundless energy and optimism.  The year prior to my internship, Scorsone had also finally made public what many long knew; he became Kentucky’s first openly gay senator.

If you can think back to 2004, that was the year of the marriage ballot initiatives.  In many states, religious conservatives were sponsoring constitutional amendments to specifically ban gay marriage.  As both a gay legislator and a liberally minded one, Scorsone vigorously opposed the measure, but in conservative Kentucky, it seemed fated to pass.

On one particular day during the session, the bill’s supporters came to rally from all over the state.  Churches sponsored buses to bring hundreds of activists to bear, and they crowded the Frankfort Capitol to demand passage “in the defense of marriage.”

In my mind’s eye I can still see these folks, best described as an angry mob.  They cloaked their views as being pro-family and pro-tradition, but we all knew why they were there.  They both hated and feared homosexuality and homosexuals, and saw in the gradual societal acceptance of gays and lesbians a challenge to their established worldview.  This group brought to mind the quote of William James, “A  great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

In retrospect, it is clear to me that in Ernesto Scorsone they saw a fitting object for their hatred.  A gay man, a liberal, representing a community largely comprised of minorities.  As Scorsone’s only intern during that term, I was easily identified with him, and felt their venom directed at me, also.

During the course of the day, I would frequently run messages back and forth between the Senate and the Assembly, whose respective chambers book-ended the main hall of the Capitol.  Each time, I had to pass through this mob, listening to their insults, their paranoia on full display, their fear and hate made more urgent and more extreme by their numbers.

In the early afternoon, as I was navigating a path through this crowd on my way back to the Senate chamber, an older man in need of both a laundering and a dentist leaned close to me and said “you people make me sick!”  As I moved to pass him, he spit at me, a large goober that thankfully missed my face, but spoiled my tie.

I spent the balance of the day defiant, giving an interview to the local newspaper and trying, though in futility, to use this incident to highlight why the bill was misguided.  It was a day of high passion and drama, and it has left a mark on my political outlook that persists to this day.

Never before have constitutions been amended to specifically deny rights to a group of people.  The “debate” about gay rights is not really a debate at all: it is and has always been a core civil rights issue, perhaps the only issue our parents’ generation left virtually untouched for ours to tackle.  Gay marriage does not cheapen straight marriage.  It does not deny people their religious beliefs.  If a church decides to refuse to conduct gay marriages in its facility, it can do so, as many churches refuse to participate in inter-faith unions.  However, a government that permits adults to enter into a special legal relationship with their chosen partner should not be in the business of withholding that right from certain classes of people.

During the next generation, young people will ask us incredulously if we remember when being anti-gay was commonplace among politicians, and was a socially acceptable thing to be.   Make no mistake- those who would deny gays and lesbians equal rights in any area of the law are not pro-family, pro-religion, or pro-anything else.  They are anti-gay.  As a court in Los Angeles recently opined, there is no rational basis at all for denying equal rights to gays and lesbians simply because of their sexuality.

As I hope I have made perfectly clear, I have very strong views on this topic, and it is perhaps the only political issue on which I will not “agree to disagree.”  It is both moral and political, and on this one there are no fuzzy boundaries.  To co-opt the ultimatum usually used by conservatives, you’re either with us, or you’re against us.

The 2004 incident in Frankfort has also colored my view in general of religious conservatives in the US South.  It played a significant role in my decision to relocate after college to California, which has a reputation for being more accepting and less religiously fervent.  To be sure, there are thoughtful religious conservatives, and while I may disagree with their positions, they can at least articulate them well.  They were not in evidence on that Spring day in Frankfort.  Rather, the people I observed appeared as a stereotypical and stereotyping angry mob.  They were incited by political leaders who told them what to think and made their legislative proposal fit neatly into the mob’s preconceived worldview.

I perceived a great deal of hatred and venom resting just beneath the surface of these conservatives, and it only took a carefully stated wedge issue to bring it out in force.  I see echoes of this in many people’s response to Barack Obama, to Nancy Pelosi, to the new health care law, to the deficit proposal.  They do not oppose things or debate things; they hate things.  They yell, and curse, and spit to make their passion felt.  I fear for what this active and angry minority would do if directly incited to violence.

Gradually, I believe education and what Thomas Friedman calls “the flattening of the world” will erode the strength of the narrow-minded, as exposure to the broader world of diverse people breeds acceptance and understanding.  It cannot happen quickly enough.

~Andrew