Saturday, April 20, 2013

Confederate "Heritage" Month, April 20: Theodore Bilbo (Updated)

Theodore Bilbo (1877-1947), Senator from Mississippi and supporter of New Deal economic legislation, was one of the most rancid white racists to ever sit in the US Senate.

Theodore Bilbo (1877-1947)

Robert L. Fleegler in Theodore G. Bilbo and the Decline of Public Racism, 1938-1947 Journal of Mississippi History (Spring 2006) reminds us why:

On May 24, 1938, Bilbo formally proposed legislation to return blacks to Africa. During a floor speech on the proposal, he rejected new social science theories that suggested that environment rather than genetics determined an individual’s capabilities. "It is the height of folly," he insisted, "to assume that environment, discipline, education, and all other external devices can affect the blood, smooth down inequalities between individuals of the same breed, much less between different breeds, or transmute racial qualities." Bilbo went on to praise Nazi racial doctrines. "The Germans appreciate the importance of race values. They understand that racial improvement is the greatest asset that any country can have. ... They know, as few other nations have realized, that the impoverishment of race values contributes more to the impairment and destruction of a civilization than any other agency." [my emphasis]
Fleegler makes an important point about what might be called the social-psychological economy of white racist politics, in which fine distinctions were made on the basis of often insubstantial differences:

Many southern politicians continued to use extreme language similar to Bilbo's [after 1947]. Major southern figures such as James Eastland, Richard Russell, Strom Thurmond, and George Wallace played the race card and supported Jim Crow with all their energies well into the 1960s. But they usually avoided the kind of overt racism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Italian remarks that Bilbo consistently expressed. Instead they employed code words; these legislators talked of the need to protect the South from “outside agitators” and the necessity of defending "state’s rights," but rarely used the terms niggers or kikes.
Fleegler gives a sense of how Bilbo's extreme racism could be accompanied by his support for liberal New Deal ideas, reflecting the way in which the near-total exclusion of blacks from voting in Mississippi left room for some limited amount of class-based politics between "conservatives" and "rednecks". And division which later allowed some wealthier but conservative Mississippians to blame the working-class rednecks for white racism. Fleegler writes:

Scholars have debated whether or not Bilbo's commitment to white supremacy was genuine or merely a cynical attempt to earn votes. Chester Morgan, whose book Redneck Liberal details Bilbo’s progressive record on economic issues during his Senate tenure, believes that the demagogue label is unfair. Morgan suggests that "The Man" truly believed in racial separation and that Bilbo discussed racial issues only after his opponents first raised the subject. Morgan believes that the southern establishment attempted to discredit Bilbo's progressive economic views through race baiting. For example, Bilbo’s Bourbon [conservative] opponents attacked him for being soft on racial issues because he suggested that the state abolish the poll tax. Bourbons supported the poll tax not only because it eliminated the political power of blacks but also because the measure disfranchised many of Bilbo’s poor white supporters.

Still, Bilbo’s racist outbursts erupted at suspicious times. His most famous periods of race baiting were in 1938 and 1944, points at which he was beginning re-election campaigns for the Senate, a pattern suggesting political purposes. In all likelihood, both sides of this debate are correct. Perhaps his appeals to class differences superseded his appeals to white supremacy during much of his career; however, as civil rights legislation slowly gained momentum during the 1930s and 1940s, race became increasingly central to his philosophy and he expressed his supremacist views in a more extreme fashion than most of his fellow southern politicians.
It's worth noting in the political environment of 2013 that the requirement for government-issued ID is a backdoor form of poll tax since it typically requires the payment of a fee for the ID.

Bilbo could cite some legendary pre-Civil War names of men regarded as great statesmen who had endorsed the idea of deporting blacks. But those were in the context of Abolitionist schemes to end slavery. White opponents of slavery looked favorably on "colonization" of freed slaves back to Africa, partly out of a general assumption that blacks were inferior to white but also in connection with the heavy association of slavery with the presence of blacks. As discussed in yesterday's post, the fight over Indian Removal in the 1930s was one event that made some white Abolitionists realize not only the impracticability but the inhumanity of the colonization scheme, which in any case had never achieved much resonance among African-American Abolitionists.

(Update 04/27/2013: This previous paragraph could leave the impression that antebellum advocates of colonization were all Abolitionists. They were not. In my 04/26/2013 post, I discuss the contradictory nature of the colonization program. On the other hand, many Republicans in the first years of that Party's existence advocated colonization after abolition in an attempt to broaden the appeal of their Abolitionist program.)

Fleegler's essay focuses on how Bilbo's rancid racism came increasingly into conflict with changing attitudes about race and legal equality in connection with the Second World War:

Bilbo made a speech to the Mississippi State legislature on March 22, 1944, in which typical Bilboisms contained new references to the racial changes brought about by the war. He reiterated his proposal to resettle blacks in West Africa, saying, "When this war is over and more than two million Negro soldiers, whose minds have been filled and poisoned with political and social equality stuff, return and 'hell breaks out' all over the country, I think I’ll get more help in settling the Negroes in Africa."

... The debate over appropriations for the Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) in the summer of 1944 also demonstrated a heightened awareness of Bilbo’s racism. Bilbo again proposed the repatriation of blacks to West Africa and, referring to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt's opposition to such a scheme, said, “Of course, she did not understand my ultimate plan. If I can succeed eventually in resettling the great majority of Negroes in West Africa— and I propose to do it—I might entertain the proposition of crowning Eleanor queen of Greater Liberia.” While this language was incendiary, it was not dramatically different from Bilbo’s rhetoric during the 1938 anti-lynching debate.

But by early 1944, such blatant bigotry drew more notice. The New York Times, which had ignored earlier instances of Bilbo’s racism, noted that "From the opening until the final passage vote, debate was conducted with a bluntness as to racial questions which appeared to surprise and at times astound observers in the visitor’s galleries." Allen Drury, a UPI reporter, wrote in his diary, "The FEPC appropriation was sustained today, after a vicious, dirty speech by Bilbo, who was hissed from the galleries and deserved it." [my emphasis in bold]
Fleegler also observes throughout that Bilbo's white racism against blacks was accompanied by a shameless anti-Semitism, as well.

He also provides us this reminder of what voter suppression looked like in 1946:

Bilbo, however, now faced another problem in his native Mississippi. Some African-Americans in Mississippi were challenging segregation after a pair of changes created opportunities for black voting. In 1944, the Supreme Court had ruled the all-white Democratic primary unconstitutional in Smith v. Allwright. Moreover, the Mississippi legislature unintentionally opened the door to black participation when it exempted veterans from the poll tax in 1946. The legislature expected other measures, such as the literacy test, to prevent African-American veterans from voting. Emboldened by these measures, some black veterans, including a young man by the name of Medgar Evers, attempted to vote in the Democratic primary on July 2, 1946, the first statewide election after Smith v. Allwright.

With blacks engaged in an attack on a bulwark of white supremacy, Bilbo stepped up his rhetoric and engaged in incitements that had been unnecessary in the past. "I'm calling on every red-blooded American who believes in the superiority and integrity of the white race to get out and see that no nigger votes," he proclaimed, "and the best time to do that is the night before!" As a result of Bilbo’s inflammatory statements and the incitements of the local press, some white Mississippians responded with a campaign of intimidation and violence. Evers and a group of veterans made two attempts to vote in Decatur, but on both occasions white mobs prevented them from doing so. Their experience was replicated across the state, and few African-Americans were able to exercise their constitutional rights. [my emphasis in bold]

This is what vote suppression is. But I don't mean to say it's a "slippery slope." The present-day voter suppression tactics are the same thing as the vote suppression of the Jim Crow decades in Mississippi and the Deep South. We already see blatant psychological and physical intimidation of African-American and Latino voters happening. Again, what we're seeing today is not a "slippery slope." This is the bottom of the slope already, straight-up segregationist vote suppression. It will get worse if the current measures aren't rolled back. But this is an issue where present-day Americans have no reason to pat ourselves on the back that we've overcome that aspect of the past. It's the present again.

I'll conclude with this quote of Bilbo defending himself against charges of inciting violence and intimidation against black citizens. He goes on to say that he's a friend to the Negroes, just like, say, Rand "Baby Doc" Paul today. This isn't just ass-covering or hypocrisy, it's proud sneering at what he and his violent followers had accomplished in preventing the practice of democracy in the State of Mississippi:

The hearings concluded with Bilbo’s own testimony in which he claimed that he had never advocated violent means to prevent blacks from voting, suggesting that a hostile media had distorted his remarks. Bilbo declared, "I deny that I exhorted, agitated, and made any inflammatory appeals to the passions and prejudices of the white population to foster, stimulate, inspire, create and intensify a state of acute and aggravated tension between the white and Negro races in the state of Mississippi." He added, "I want to say right here off the record that the Negroes of Mississippi have never had a better friend."
Tags: , ,

Capturing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the rituals of mourning mass-casualty events

Charlie Pierce reports on Friday events in Boston, Guns Along The River: A Late Night In Watertown Esquire Politics Blog 04/20/2013.

The one thing we should all remember about this is that it was always a police action. There was no need for Patriot Acts, or for warrantless wiretapping, or for "enhanced interrogation techniques," or for anything else out that bag of horrors the previous administration filled so fatly after the attacks of 9/11. The waterboard was left in the closet. This was cops being cops, albeit with some fairly impressive modern-day technology. (I didn't know police helicopters had thermal-imaging capabilities. I will now respect more those signs in New Hampshire that say, "Speed Monitored by Aircraft.") There has been grinding forensic work ever since the bombs went off. There was all that basic shoe-leather detective work yesterday, house after house, block after block. And that's not even to get into the horrific events of Thursday night, which nonetheless did not require a military response. Just cops being cops.

And now there should be a trial. And not just a trial, but the greatest, fairest trial in the history of trials. The defendant should get the best possible legal assistance money can buy. The "public safety exception" to Miranda should be allowed to expire. He should get the best jury we can empanel and, if we have to move the trial to Guam on account of pre-trial publicity, then godspeed. And then he should be tried and, if convicted, in the greatest, fairest trial in history, he should get shipped off forever to federal prison, never to be heard from again. We should ignore all the predictable howling from John McCain, and from his maiden aunt, Lindsey Graham. This guy is accused of being a multiple murderer. He committed his crimes against the people of Suffolk and Middlesex Counties in Massachusetts. These were not acts of war. They were crimes, more garish than most. This was a day for cops, not for grandstanding celebrity politicians who were not here this week. [my emphasis]
The "public safety exception" to Miranda is something that is a real concern to anyone who actually cares about the rights of people who are accused of crime. Marcy Wheeler discusses it in Dzhokhar Tsaraev: The Big Issue Is Not Miranda, It's Presentment Emptywheel 04/20/2013. She also links to Emily Bazelon's Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights? Slate 04/19/2013 and Josh Gerstein's Next for Boston suspect: Five legal questions Politico 04/19/2003. Gerstein writes:

The Center for Constitutional Rights condemned the decision in a statement: "The Miranda warnings were put in place because police officers were beating and torturing "confessions" out of people who hadn't even been formally accused of a crime. We cannot afford to repeat our mistakes. If officials require suspects to incriminate themselves, they are making fair trials and due process merely option and not a requirement. To venture down that road again will make law enforcement accountable to no one."
The Center's press release is CCR Condemns Miranda Exception in Boston Marathon Suspect Case 04/20/2013, which also says:

Like Obama's expanded killing program and his perpetuation of indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, this is yet another erosion of the Constitution to lay directly at the President's feet. Obama's Justice Department unilaterally expanded the "public safety exception" to Miranda in 2010 beyond anything the Supreme Court ever authorized. Each time the administration use this exception, it stretches wider and longer. However horrific the crime, continuing to erode constitutional rights invites continued abuse by law enforcement, and walks us down a dangerous path that becomes nearly impossible to reverse.
Pierce has obviously also been reflecting on the public rituals that have grown up around the periodic, recurring mass-casualty events that are part of American life now:

The gun battle into which John Donohue wandered exploded the comfortable narrative of these things. We had the event. Then we had the mourning. Then we had "Indomitability Day." Then we had the healing of the interfaith service at which the president gave a fine speech, and the demonstrations of solidarity at the Bruins game. That is the pattern of these things in our public lives, until the next one of these things happens, and then we do it all over again. We did it for Tucson after Columbine. We did it for Aurora after Tucson. We did it for Sandy Hook after Aurora. And, this week, we did it for Boston after Sandy Hook. It's the modern Stations of the Cross, with theme music, and logos, and Wolf Blitzer. We were done. We were healed. And then the Tsarnaev brothers came home. And one of them got away.

Suddenly, healing was very much beside the point. Suddenly, indomitability meant more than shouting brave imprecations on Facebook, or singing the Anthem loudly at a hockey game. Suddenly, indomitability meant staying inside your house, all day, while the men with the body armor and long guns walked your streets, because you might come out of your house and get yourself shot. Our autonomic emotional reflexes were all shorting out. This was an event that happened too soon after the previous event, even though, in most violent places in the world, that's the way these things happen. These are the places without the perennial media Via Dolorosa that we all walk every time another one of these things happen. Our steps were less steady. Our sense of direction was jumbled. We were on a familiar path for a while, and then some son of a bitch moved Golgotha on us, and we didn't know where to go next on our journey to redemption.
Rosa Brooks is one who thinks there's something dysfuntional about this media-driven ritual, as she explains in Keep Calm and Shut the Bleep Up Foreign Policy 04/18/2013:

At the end of the day, there just isn't much most ordinary people should do in immediate response to events such as the Boston bombings. We can take common sense security measures, but we can't eliminate all terrorism any more than we can eliminate all crime or prevent all accidental deaths. We live in an imperfect world. The best we can do is cultivate resilience and learn how to intelligently manage risk.

Second best: Let's quit whining and quit yapping. A small number of Americans have something terrible to grieve about as a result of Monday's bombing. The rest of us should show our respect by not trying to horn in on their grief -- and by shutting up until we actually have some information worth sharing.
And she refers us to an opinion piece of hers from six years ago, We're not all victims Los Angeles Times 04/20/2007, that one on the Virginia Tech Massacre. "Convincing ourselves that we've been vicariously traumatized by the pain of strangers has become a cherished national pastime," she wrote there. She added, "Our collective insistence that we all share in the Virginia Tech trauma is a form of anti-politics, one that blinds us to the distinctions between different kinds and degrees of suffering."

The Virginia Tech massacre was catastrophic for the victims and their loved ones, but, unlike war, it was not catastrophic for the nation. Yet President Bush — who refuses to attend the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because that might "politicize" the war his administration started — ordered all federal flags at half-staff and rushed to Blacksburg to bemoan the "day of sadness for the entire nation." It's a good strategy. People busy holding candlelight vigils for the deaths in Blacksburg don't have much time left over to protest the war in Iraq.

The insistence on collective mourning even operates to depoliticize the Virginia Tech tragedy. Those who made the mistake of suggesting that the massacre might lead us to consider tighter gun regulation were quickly told to shut up because this is "a moment for grief," not politics.

But we live in a political world. Searching for policies that can reduce the violence that plagues our world, at home and abroad, is the best way to honor the dead.
I'll give some credit to President Obama so far for not trying to turn this into some war fever.

But Brooks' 2007 column gets at what bothered me so much about Obama's treating the Gaby Giffords assassination attempt as an opportunity for a pious speech about the need for "civility." Up until the Sandy Hook school shooting, he repeated the de-politicizing ritual that Brooks' describes Bush employing in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. We need less maudlin and irresponsible media spectacles around these events - and given the level of gun proliferation we have to assume they will continue - and more realistic looks at what is happening and what public policy should be in response. While the mainstream media and the Democratic Party treat these events as "a moment for grief," the NRA and their loyal Republican Party use these events to promote the sale of more guns and ammo by means of fear-mongering paranoid conspiracy theories that serves to dial up the potential for mass-casualty violence.

Tags:

Friday, April 19, 2013

Confederate "Heritage" Month 2013, April 19: Abolitionists against Indian removal

Natalie Joy has an article on another issue that was a major theme for the Jackson Administration, Indian Removal. As I've said more than once here, even though this blog's name is a recognition of the vital democratic tradition that Jacksonianism represented, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was one major accomplishment of his that was a bad decision, and an immoral one by the standards of the time.

Joy's article is on Cherokee Slaveholders and Radical Abolitionists: An unlikely alliance in antebellum America Common-Place 10/4 (July 2010). She gives the background of the Act this way:

The election of Andrew Jackson to the presidency in 1828 famously signaled a new era in U.S. Indian policy, one that had dire consequences for thousands of Native Americans. Once in office, Jackson urged Congress to pass federal legislation authorizing him to sign removal treaties with all Indians living east of the Mississippi River, thus freeing up millions of acres of land for white settlement. The states most eager for such legislation were in the South, not coincidentally a region that had offered Jackson significant support precisely because he promised to make Indian removal a top priority of his administration. Georgia was particularly eager for the federal government to make good on its 1802 promise to extinguish Indian land titles within its borders, which included a significant portion of the Cherokee Nation. But Jackson's plan did not go unchallenged. In 1829, as both houses of Congress prepared their own version of what would become the Indian Removal Bill, reformers throughout the northern United States joined with Native Americans to fight its passage. [my emphasis]
I won't go into the complexities of Old Hickory's general approach to Indian policy here. I discussed it in this earlier post, Old Hickory and the Indians 04/08/2004, a review of Robert Remini's Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars (2001). My focus here is more on the "antiremoval" coalition, as Joy calls them. "Antiremovalists," she notes argued against removal on moral grounds and defended the sovereign rights of the native tribes. "Most importantly," she notes, "antiremovalists believed that Anglo-Americans had a moral duty to bring Christian civilization to Native Americans, a project that would be greatly hampered by removal."

Morality in their eyes was deeply connected to Christianity and capitalism:

Making Indians "civilized" had been a central component of federal U.S. Indian policy since George Washington's administration, but it was not formalized until the passage of the 1819 Civilization Act, which provided funds for missionary organizations eager to participate in the conversion of "savages." "Civilization," it was commonly understood, was the only way for Indians to avoid extinction—the inevitable fate of uncivilized peoples who came into contact with more advanced cultures. What exactly "civilization" entailed was a matter of debate in the nineteenth century, but most people agreed that to be civilized, Indians would have to be guided by Christian morality, live as settled farmers, and abide by a written system of laws and government. Most importantly, Indians needed to acknowledge and embrace private property, including individual landownership. In 1789, no less a figure than Henry Knox, Washington's Secretary of War and the architect of early national Indian policy, argued that the key to civilizing Indians was "to introduce among [them] a love for exclusive property."

Abolitionists believed, as did most Americans, in the myth of the "noble savage," whose innocence of civilization was the source of his virtuous purity, but also his greatest weakness, for it left him vulnerable to the introduction of unwanted vices ... [my emphasis]
This is a reminder to be cautious about anachronism, the projecting of current understandings onto an earlier time. By liberal or left standards of 2013, even the Indians' white partisans weren't interested in assisting the Indians by putting them under white American laws, practices and institutions, especially the institutions of Christian churches and private property.

The irony acknowledged in the title of Joy's article is that the Abolitionists opposing Indian removal to prevent the spread of slavery found themselves in coalition with Cherokee slaveowners:
Most Cherokees did not own slaves, nor did they radically alter their traditional ways of living to conform to the standards of American civilization, but those who did were part of a growing class of wealthy and politically powerful elites who lived on large plantations like their white neighbors. And it was this elite class with whom antiremovalists, including abolitionists, had the most contact in print and in person.
And that coalition had many of the problems of such the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend alliances:

Throughout the debate over Indian removal in the 1830s, abolitionist support of the Cherokee cause was contingent upon a romanticized picture of Indian slaveholding. As part of their support for the Cherokee Nation's fight against removal, abolitionists found themselves in the unusual position of acting as apologists for Indian slaveholding, mounting a defense that drew heavily from the testimony of Cherokee leaders. Abolitionists accepted such testimony as fact, even when they had good reason to doubt its truthfulness, because it reinforced their own ideas about Indians, slavery and civilization. [my emphasis]
Politics is politics, as Joe Stalin said shortly before he signed the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1939.

The antiremoval Abolitionists found themselves defending slavery in a kind of Hegelian way, arguing that the adoption of black slavery by the Cherokees was evidence of their progress in the American Christian form of civilization, including this unfortunately element of it. Joy observes that the establishment of classical liberal notions of constitutions and the rule of law, and slaveowning Cherokees were on board with that part of the program to some extent:

In 1827 the Cherokee Nation had written its own constitution, which included numerous provisions protecting the interests of slaveholders, including barring slaves and their descendants, free or enslaved, from holding office or voting. Many other laws including those against interracial marriage attest to the legal and political institutionalization of black chattel slavery in the Cherokee Nation.

... Abolitionists accepted that Cherokee slaveholding—at least in the short term—was compatible with and even evidence of civilization. The Cherokees' adoption of black chattel slavery, and the larger cultural, legal and political changes it wrought, proved their inherent capacity for progress. Because abolitionists did not believe slavery to be the basis of a civilized society, Indian slaveholding had to be merely an intermediary stage, not the end result of the process of civilization. [my emphasis]
But even given the complexities and moral ambiguities that politics often produce, the Abolitionists were fighting for the rights of the Indians, as they understood them. "Even after passage of the Indian Removal Act in May 1830, abolitionists continued to support Indian rights, often folding the plight of Indians into their condemnation of black chattel slavery," Joy writes.

Even though the Abolition movement was still relatively small, the conflicts between the North and the South due to slavery were already beginning to affect issues not directly connected with slavery as such:

Abolitionists joined the Indian cause because they saw in removal the influence of the slaveholding South. "One would think that the guilt of African slavery was enough for the nation to bear," one writer lamented in 1829, "without the additional crime of injustice to the aborigines." Although the Indian Removal Bill applied to nearly all Indians living east of the Mississippi River, southern slaveowners were clearly the most eager to obtain fertile Indian land, and abolitionists feared that removal would hasten the westward expansion of slavery at the expense of national honor. [my emphasis]
The Hegelian World Spirit was evidently at work in the alliance of the Abolitionists with Southern Cherokee slaveholders revealing to some of them the problems with their supported for colonization of African-Americans back to Africa after the abolition of slavery, i.e., mass deportation:

The fight over the Indian Removal Bill immediately preceded the radicalization of the antislavery movement in the early 1830s. This was no accident, as several historians have noted. Many reformers who supported the American Colonization Society and other moderate antislavery activities in the 1820s had been radicalized by their involvement with the antiremoval cause. Antiremoval activism convinced many antislavery reformers to reconsider the colonization of free blacks to Africa. They found themselves increasingly unable to justify their support for one policy (colonization) that bore such strong similarities to another (removal) which they strongly opposed. By 1831, leading abolitionists, including, most famously, William Lloyd Garrison, were denouncing the gradualism of colonization in favor of immediate emancipation, a crucial shift brought about, at least in part, by the debate over Indian removal in the late 1820s and early 1830s. [my emphasis]
The colonization idea for black Americans, which never gained more than marginal popularity among black Abolitionists, was nevertheless still seen by many whites as a viable option up until the Civil War.

And, if we count Theodore Bilbo, even long after.

But that's a topic for tomorrow's post.

Tags: , , , , ,

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Comments on Charles Beard


The Progressive historian Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948) is one of the most famous American historians, remembered especially for his An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. I'll let Encyclopædia Britannica do the summary ("Beard, Charles A." 2006 DVD) from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD .[Accessed February 6, 2008]:

He ... developed a schema of historical explanation that found its most famous expression in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913). In this book he claimed that the Constitution had been formulated by interest groups whose motivations were just as much personal financial ones as they were political ones. Although American politicians were generally outraged at the implications of material interests embodied in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, the book was received by academicians as an innovative study on motivational factors among socioeconomic groups.
Beard's book focuses attention on economic factors in the making of the Constitution. But the traditional way of remembering his book seems to be a shallow cynicism, i.e., the Founders who wrote the Constitution was just looking to make a buck for themselves.

For most of his career, Beard associated himself with the political left in Britain and the US. But the last book of his career, published the year of his death, was President Roosevelt and the Coming of War, 1941 (1948), which echoed the rightwing isolationist indictment of Roosevelt which was also reflected in his American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932–1940 (1946). I've been puzzled for a long time by Beard's reputation and his seeming political flip from Progressive reformer to rightwing isolationist late in his life.

In some ways, the roots of his seeming ideological change may well have been in his earlier work. The argument of Economic Interpretation, apart from some of the factual challenges other historians brought forward, is heavily reductionist. Yes, the participants in the Constitutional Convention of 1787-8 were mean of means and capitalists of some variety. But that's who the leaders of the new democracy were. The United States economy was a developing capitalist economy with few feudal holdovers. Any Constitution that was well suited to the circumstances of the United States would have benefitted the wealthiest portion of society, even if it had been written by paupers.

The Progressive movement was influenced by a particular interpretation of early American history that looked to the pro-business followers of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Party as the precursors of the kind of affirmative government that Teddy Roosevelt practiced as President in restraining the trusts. William Appleman Williams contributed an essay on Beard to the compilation American Radicals: Some Problems and Personalities (1957), Harvey Goldberg, ed., which was entitled, "Charles Austin Beard: The Intellectual as Tory-Radical". There was definitely a conservative streak in Beard's thought in the heyday of Progressivism.

Beard followed An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States with The Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy (1915), which also proved to be a very influential book at the time. Merrill Peterson discusses Beard's work on Jefferson in The Jefferson Image in the American Mind (1960). Key to Beard's view of Jefferson was the notion that Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party (the original name of today's Democratic Party, which was normally called the Republican Party prior to the 1820s) grew out of the anti-Constitution movement of the late 1780s, while Hamilton's Federalist Party grew from the Constitution's supporters. Peterson points out that this inaccurate picture of early American party history was based on heavily reliance on Federalist sources. As Peterson puts it:

In truth, the underlying idea of continuity [anti-Constitutionalists to Republicans, pro-Constitutionalist to Federalists] was a Federalist idea. It was as if Beard had taken one of the myths of Federalism - that the Federalists were the friends of the Constitution and the Jeffersonians its enemies - drained off its grosser content, added some fresh ingredients, and then presented the result as a true history of the original parties. Republican arguments to the contrary by Jefferson, Madison, and John Taylor, Beard laid to the "extraordinary cleverness" with which these partisans "claimed the Constitution for themselves". Beard was committed to the Federalist position by his earlier book [on the Constitution]. If the Constitution was framed in hostility to democracy and for the benefit of capitalist groups, then it naturally followed that the Hamiltonian system conformed to the Constitution.
How James Madison, one of the leading members of the Constitutional convention and one of the three authors (along with Hamilton and John Jay) of the Federalist Papers could have been viewed as a conniving enemy of the Constitutional system is a bit hard to imagine.

Peterson writes that Beard presented Jefferson as having been "a radical and doctrinaire agrarian", and that he had used the term "agrarian" in a "confusing double sense of agricultural and anti-capitalist." Jefferson, of course, was not anti-capitalist, nor were the free farmers of his time. Peterson notes that later in his career Beard was to speak positively of Jefferson's politics. But his argument in Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy was distinctly anti-Jefferson, writing him off as essentially a naively utopian agrarian:

The Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy has usually been placed, with nearly all of Beard's work, on the Jeffersonian side of the perennial debate. On what grounds it is difficult to see. ...

As critical as he was of twentieth-century capitalism, Beard nevertheless believed the Federalist regime, which gave the spur to capitalism, had been good for the country. The Jeffersonians had cried privilege and corruption. They were right, of course; but it was, Beard thought, merely a question of whose ox was gored. "It was a clear case of a collision of economic interests: fluid capital versus agrarianism. The representation of one interest was as legitimate as the other." The only standard Beard could apply to the parties was that of capacity for constructive work, which in turn depended upon the ability to organize politics around economic want and need. Unquestionably, in Beard's judgment, Hamilton and the Federalists were superior to Jefferson and the Republicans in this crucial task of statesmanship. A refrain of innuendo ran through the book to the effect that the new government would have suffered irreparable injury had the decision on such momentous issues as Hamilton's "been left to those highly etherealized persons who 'cherished the people' - and nothing more." Hamilton's understanding of the economic basis of politics caused Beard to rank him "with the great statesmen of all time." No such encomium was passed on Jefferson.
Tags:

Confederate "Heritage" Month, April 18: Black Power, Black Panthers

Sharon Riley did an interview with Joshua Bloom and Waldo Martin Jr., co-authors of Black Against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party (2012) for Harper's The Stream 03/15/2013; the interview has the same title, Black Against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party. Apparently they made joint responses to her questions.

They talk about the period in the 1960s when urban rioting began and Black Power came to be a popular slogan among many African-Americans. This period turned out to be paradigm-setting for segregationists. Because their framing for issues of racial conflict often sound as though they are living in 1969.

Huey Newton and Bobby Seale formed the Black Panther Party (BPP) in 1966 in Oakland. I sketched the history of the BPP in The sixties: Huey Newton and the Black Panther Party 06/247/2008. It emerged from the conditions that faced African-American urban communities in the 1960s.

The peaceful protests of the civil-rights movement proved powerless to address urban poverty and ghettoization. Large numbers of blacks had migrated to the cities of the North and the West for wartime jobs. White and industrial flight left concentrated urban black poverty, and municipalities responded with brutal containment policing. Urban police and fire departments remained almost exclusively white. Blacks were shut out from political machines, underrepresented electorally, denied access to elite white colleges and universities, and mired in poverty. In the mid-1960s, inspired by the civil-rights victories over legal segregation, young black people in Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and cities throughout the country took up the cry for "Black Power!" They sought new ways of organizing to achieve economic and political power.

In the late 1960s, the Black Panther Party emerged as the exemplar. The Black Panthers weren’t alone in theorizing that the black community was a "colony in the mother country" and calling for self-determination as part of a global struggle against imperialism. What distinguished them was their advocacy of armed self-defense against the police. They recognized that young urban blacks were ready to stand up to police, as evidenced by Watts and the spread of urban black rebellion, and sought to organize armed resistance into a political force. Initially, the Black Panthers used the law to challenge police brutality while bearing loaded weapons. Soon, hundreds of black people were rallying armed in legal protests against police brutality. The State of California responded by changing the law to restrict the right to bear arms. But the party adapted. Attracted to both armed self-defense and such community programs as Free Breakfast for Children, young black people from across the country contacted the Black Panthers asking to open chapters. During the party's peak, from 1968 to 1970, thousands of young blacks in close to seventy cities dedicated their lives to the party and to revolution, often at great personal risk. [my emphasis]
The year 1968 was the year membership in the BPP soared nationwide. As they say in their book:

As late as February 1968, the Black Panther Party was still a small local organization. But that year, everything changed. By December, the Party had opened offices in twenty cities, from Los Angeles to New York. In the face of numerous armed conflicts with police and virulent direct repression by the state, young black people embraced the revolutionary vision of the Party, and by 1970, the Party had opened offices in sixty-eight cities from Winston-Salem to Omaha and Seattle. The Black Panther Party had become the center of a revolutionary movement in the United States.
The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. set off urban riots in cities across the country and gave the BPP a sudden new appeal.

But their heyday was a short one. As they recall in the book, "In the early 1970s, the Party rapidly declined. By mid-1972, it was basically a local Oakland community organization once again."

But their memory still haunts today's segregationists.

Many whites found it easy to ask in the 1960s why, after the federal government and white taxpayers had "done so much" for blacks Americans, they were still so angry and staged urban riots. But the lived experience of African-Americans wasn't one of continuing improvement. As John Hope Franklin and Alfred Moss, Jr, put it in From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans (2003):

Between 1949 and 1964 the relative participation of African Americans in the total economic life of the nation declined significantly. During that period the unemployment rate of blacks was at least double that of whites. Even in 1963, a prosperous year, the unemployment rate for blacks was 114 percent higher than for whites. Where blacks were employed, more than 80 percent worked at the bottom of the economic ladder, as compared with 40 percent of employed whites. In later years it was no better. In 1964 the unemployment rate among blacks was 9.6 percent versus 4.6 percent among whites; in 1971 it was 9.9 percent among blacks and S.4 percent among whites. In 1969 the median income of blacks with eight years of schooling was $4,472, while it was $7,018 for whites with the same amount of schooling. In 1970 the Census Bureau, defining poverty as a median income of less than $3,968 for a family of four, reported that one in every three blacks as compared with one in every ten whites was in that category. And the chances for African Americans to move up were greatly restricted not only by general race bias but also by the meager opportunities for apprenticeship training and by discrimination in many labor unions. [my emphasis]
Tags: , , , ,

Tags: , , ,

The Anti-Europe Alternatives For Germany Party

A new conservative political party has been formed that will compete in September's parliamentary elections in Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD; Alternatives For Germany), headed by Bernd Lucke. Philipp Wittrock reports on it for Spiegel International reports on it in The Know-It-All Party: Anti-Euro 'Alternative for Germany' Launches 04/12/2013.

Earlier this year, Spiegel International provided this English-language guide to the current Germany political parties, From Black to Orange: SPIEGEL ONLINE's Guide to German Political Parties 02/28/2013, which could be a helpful reference when seeing news about the German elections.

It's a failure of the left-leaning parties in Germany and much of the rest of Europe that they haven't developed a consistent criticism of the neoliberal austerity policies that are wrecking Europe's economy and which German Chancellor Angela "Frau Fritz" Merkel, aka Merkiavelli, has been successfully pushing on eurozone countries caught in the currency trap of the euro during a depression.

As a politician who is gets what she wants done, you have to respect her effectiveness. American Democrats can only wish that President Obama could be so successful in getting legislation passed he nominally supports.

Merkel's accomplishments in imposing austerity, though, are having bad results. (See: Manfred Ertel, 'Like 1930s Germany': Greek Far Right Gains Support Spiegel International 04/18/2013.

The European Union that we know today is the product of a long process that began just after the Second World War. The EU's official history website describes it this way:

The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War. As of 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community begins to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace. The six founders are Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. [my emphasis]
And it is based on democratic principles, each member country being required to meet certain minimal standards of democratic process and rule of law before being allowed entry. The free trade aspects were meant to facilitate and encourage the process of furthering unity on the basis of peace and democracy.

I'm not starry-eyed about the motivations of the Union's supporters. Many of them were primarily interested in the money that could be made from freer trade and economic integration. And if it does encourage the development of democracy and "secure lasting peace," that's perfectly fine.

But what has happened since 2009 with the depression and the euro crisis is that the economic motivations of the Union have come to dominate all others. And dominate them in the form of a newly bullying Germany under Frau Fritz' leadership, in which she poses as the stern schoolmistress of Europe.

But because the left felt a strong stake in the construction of "Europe" (the EU), the opposition in most places has tended to be among conservatives promoting own-country nationalism and worried that Europe would establish high, social-democratic standards of social insurance and public services and thus endanger "free market" policies favoring concentration of wealth among the already-wealthiest. And so today we have the odd spectacle in Germany, where Frau Fritz is returning the country to its reputation of arrogance and bullying that the postwar "never again" sentiment was supposed to avoid. But instead of the antiwar and pro-democracy left leading the criticism against Frau Fritz' austerity programs, it's still conservative nationalists, playing on resentments that Frau Fritz herself has deliberately stoked over Germany taxpayers having to bail out countries like Greece and Spain that supposedly are getting the austerity punishment they deserve for their misbehavior.

Wittrock illustrates the appeal of the anti-Europe message to hardcore nationalists:

[T]he [new AfD] party ... is already having trouble controlling its membership roster. In Germany, mainstream parties have to carefully check each new member to make sure that he or she doesn't have former associations with radical right-wing extremists, which could reflect poorly on the party itself. But Lucke says there is so far no evidence that any political radicals are trying to infiltrate the party. For weeks now, Alternative for Germany organizers have been sending out the message that they are in no way seeking to attract right-wing populists or right-wing radicals with their criticism of the common currency.

Keeping track of new members, though, is no easy task. The party claims that it is reviewing each new member for signs of a right-wing past. At the same time, though, all it takes is a quick scan of the party's Facebook page to find the kind of language that is often used by right-wing extremists in defining their enemies. They include official entries with loaded terms such as: "state media," an allusion to a media that supposedly filters out alternative viewpoints; "bloc parties," the term used by the far-right, neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD) to describe the mainstream parties; and "multicultural re-education." Little wonder, then, that the NPD itself has praised Alternative for German for the "important function it serves in breaking the ice and opening doors for the NPD's criticism of the euro and the EU."
Polls are currently showing their support below the 5% they would have to get nationally to win representation in the Bundestag. But Frau Fritz and her CDU/CSU party have to worry that they will pull votes from them, since they are competing for the same constituency. That pressure also constrains her flexibility in European politics. It's to a major extent a trap of her own making; but it will be a calculation on her Merkiavelian mind. (See: Günther Lachmann, D-Mark-Partei wirbelt Parteiengefüge durcheinander Die Welt 17.04.2013; Christian Endt und Lenz Jacobsen, Sie wollen die Alternative für Deutschland sein Die Zeit 18.04.2013)

Wolfgang Münchau discusses Frau Fritz' political dilemma with the AfD in "Alternative für Deutschland": Warum die Anti-Euro-Partei Merkels Sieg gefährdet Spiegel Online 17.04.2013. He takes the position that Germany should save the euro by pursuing a banking union and common bank insurance and other policies that would actually give the euro the possibility to function without driving millions of people in Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain into poverty. That is not the position the AfD is taking. They just want Germany to bail on the rest of Europe for nationalistic reasons. The party is name Alternatives for Germany, after all!

Technically, the AfD isn't calling directly for a euro exit by Germany but for a national referendum on German membership. They presumably assume that the appeal of "Europe" is still too widely shared to directly oppose it at this early stage of their party's growth.

Münchau describes one of the huge ironies in all this. If Germany left the euro and the eurozone remained, the euro would drop in value and immediately increase the competitiveness of the other countries who are now pursuing austerity policies aimed at enhancing their competitiveness within the current eurozone. The new German mark would go up and value and hammer Germany's export-oriented economy. Germany is benefiting enormously from euro membership. So Frau Fritz is pursuing her own version of nationalistic politics within the eurozone in trying to maintain that advantage while crushing the economies of the countries currently implementing her austerity policies.

Tags: , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Jennifer Granholm and a Kantian antinomy of the 2012 election

I went to this presentation at UC-Berkeley, Four More Years: Obama's Re-Election and the Prospects for a Second Term: Annual Review of the Presidency 04/15/2013, mainly because former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm was on the panel. My wife came with me, so Jennifer Granholm got to meet her biggest Austrian fan!



Among other things, Granholm seemed to be very confident that Hillary would run in 2016 and that she had good prospects. The panel discussed the Grand Bargain in process terms and I noticed she was careful not to talk about Obama's proposed SocSec/Medicare cuts as though they were in any way a good idea. I asked her afterwards, "How much of a screw-up do you think it was for Obama to propose benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare?" She gave a modified version of the Obama loyalist answer, saying that she thinks it will probably work out okay because the Republicans won't agree to increased revenue and that it was a ploy to make the Reps look unreasonable. She said during the main presentation that if Obama agreed to a deal with just SocSec/Medicare cuts it would simply be doing what the Republicans want. Since that's the road Obama's gone down, I hope she's right as far as it goes. But there are way too many ways it could go wrong.

The hardcore Obama loyalist position was illustrated well by the brilliant Tom Tomorrow in this 04/15/2013 Moment of Truth cartoon, with Obama Middle Man explaining to the Obama Apologist why he's proposing cuts in benefits to Social Security and Medicare:


On other current issues, she thinks any gun regulation will die in the House. With the Senate's collapse on the issue today, her idea about the House may not get tested any time soon! But she was expected an even more watered-down version to get through the Senate. But she made the biggest emphasis of the panel on what that means in terms of the disconnect of Congress from the people of the country. She pointed out that more people in the US support background checks than believe in God and more than those who like kittens!

She also thinks Obama will make a serious push for immigration reform.

The other panelists included Mark Barabak of the Los Angeles Times, Tammy Frisby of the Hoover Institution, and Lynn Vavreck, a political science professor at UCLA.

The "Kantian antinomy" title occurred to me in connection with a discussion that took place especially between Vavreck and Granholm. Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781 with subsequent revised editions) gives four sets of antinomies, each of which is two opposing arguments about what in philosophy is known as "special metaphysics," questions about the God, the ultimate origin of the world/universe and the soul. Each pair of arguments is framed so that one completely excludes the other and neither can be reconciled based on the viewpoint they assume. This was a method of argument used by ancient Skeptic philosophers to argue against metaphysics as a valid source of knowledge.

Granholm and Vavreck didn't talk about Kant. Vavreck insisted on talking about statistical studies of what influences voter outcomes, and fixed in particular on her argument that an improving economy virtually guarantees the re-election of the incumbent President. Granholm and Frisby both mentioned how impressive the Obama get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operation was, and Vavreck made the argument that those didn't show up as statistically significant in the results. She insisted that Party affiliation and the state of the economy, and most specifically whether it was growing and by how much, were the only accurate predictors of the outcome of Presidential elections. She did allow that since the economy would work against Mitt Romney, he would have been well-advised to try shift the emphasis of the campaign away from the economy.

The Governor pushed back pretty hard on that line of argument. Of course, the "ground game" and the campaign style makes a difference in the outcome. Vavreck conceded that those factors only make small differences at the margins, and enough of those could theoretically add up to be significant.

The reason it made the think of the irreconcilable argument of Kant's antinomies is that in an important sense, there's no reconciling those two viewpoints stated with the assumptions at work. Also, I remembered having the same argument in the 1980s with an economics professor teaching a forecasting class. If you're using a mathematical model, economic data which are described in fairly consistent quantitative over extended periods of time will inevitable show up as strong indicators compared to more quantitative factors like the candidate's projection of a sympathetic personality or similar subjective factors. It's also a different question to ask, "what kind of data could I use to predict election outcomes ahead of time?" than it is to ask, "What were the decisive factors in the election outcome?"

There are also basic assumptions in looking at American Presidential election that are at work. You effectively have to assume there will be two main candidates with some reasonably similar party organization behind them and at least enough funding for both to mount a national campaign. If the incumbent President's party had badly split or the organizational infrastructure and fundraising ability had somehow collapsed over issues not closely correlating to economic growth and the opposition party was strong on both those factors, then it's very likely that neither the state of the economy nor elements of electioneering strategy nor the "ground game" on turnout would not be nearly such large factors.

I also wonder how well the 1980 Presidential campaign would stand up to that particular scrutiny. What that professors years ago argued that what was decisive was not that the economy was growing, which it was in the second half of 1980, but what the stage of economic growth was doing to the unemployment rate.

Granholm also mentioned several major accomplishments of the Obama Administration: the stimulus bill of 2009; the auto industry rescue; Obamacare; green energy investments, though she noted that this has been rolled way back since 2010; the "race to the top" educational initiative; and, ending two wars. (That part starts on the video at around 1:22:30.)

ags: , ,

Confederate "Heritage" Month, April 17: Vote suppression

Gary May in this excerpt from his book Bending Toward Justice: The Voting Rights Act and the Transformation of American Democracy (2013), How conservatives invented "voter fraud" to attack civil rights Salon 04/14/2013, discusses the segregationist voter suppression laws and tricks that the Republican Party has made central to their long-term strategy. The nominal justification they use, when they can keep their minds focused on the official line, anyway, is that these measures are intended to prevent voter fraud. But sometimes they slip and actually tell the truth in public:

Although Republicans continued to insist that the new laws were created solely to fight voter fraud, GOP officials twice revealed another motive. At a meeting of the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in June 2012, Mike Turzai, the House majority leader, boasted openly that Pennsylvania’s new law would affect the next presidential election. Proudly listing the GOP’s achievements, Turzai said, “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done.” Similarly, when, in August 2012, the Columbia Dispatch asked Doug Preise, a prominent Republican official and adviser to the state’s governor, why he so strongly supported curtailing early voting in Ohio, Preise admitted, “I really actually feel that we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African American — voter turn-out machine.” These admissions indicate that winning the presidency by suppressing the minority vote was the real reason behind the laws requiring voter IDs, limited voting hours, obstructed registration, and the like that Republican legislatures passed since the party’s victory in 2010. [my emphasis]
Requiring certain types of government-issued IDs is a favorite method, which they justify (when they're being polite!) by pretending that in-person voter fraud is rampant. But it's actually so rare as to be effectively non-existent. Yes, there's that little evidence for the claimed "voter fraud" problem.

But these laws are increasingly popular with Republicans:

Before the Republican victory in the 2010 midterms, only two states had rigorous voter ID requirements. By August 2012, 34 state legislatures had considered photo ID laws and 13 had passed them; five more made it past state legislatures only to be vetoed by the Democratic governors of Montana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina and New Hampshire. By that same summer, a number of states already had the new laws in place: Pennsylvania (where it was estimated that 9.2 percent of registered voters had no photo ID), Alabama, Mississippi (approved by referendum), Rhode Island, New Hampshire (whose state General Court overrode the governor’s veto) and five whose sponsors were all ALEC members — Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. In Alabama, Kansas and Tennessee, people wishing to register or vote must show their birth certificate. To acquire that document, they must pay a fee, which many believe is the equivalent of the poll tax, banned by the Constitution’s twenty-fourth amendment. Minnesota's citizens would vote on a state constitutional amendment in the 2012 election; if passed, voters could cast their ballot after showing a government-issued photo ID. [my emphasis]
This is straight out of the Southern segregationist playbook.

It's also worth remembering if you hear anyone who supports these voter-suppression laws say how much they love the Constitution and its "original intention." It was many decades after the Constitution went into effect before "photo ID" was available to the general public. The Frenchman Nicéphore Niépce produced the first photograph in the sense we know it no earlier than 1826. He successfully took a picture of a courtyard. He exposed the pewter plate medium he was using for eight hours to get the picture. By 1835 or so, Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre had figured out to use iodized silver and mercury to record the image and got the exposure time down to 30 minutes.

Nope, no "photo ID" in the original intent.

Tags: , ,

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Confederate "Heritage" Month 2013, April 16: Again on Rand Paul at Howard University

Rand Paul's awkward appearance at Howard University has generated quite a bit of commentary relating to the present-day segregationist mentality.

Charlie Pierce in Keeping Up With the Pauls Esquire Politics Blog 04/12/2013 reminds us what a politically extreme act the father-song pair of Ron "Papa Doc" and Rand "Baby Doc" Paul really are. Papa Doc is joining with two other neo-Confederate and Christian dominionist-minded sorts, Gary North and Thomas Woods, Jr., to produce far-right propaganda to be passed off as textbooks to Christian homeschoolers. And he notes of Baby Doc:

And, believe this, the kid's not much better, just a little slicker. His hilarious floundering at Howard University this week wasn't just a function of his being dumb as a stump, though he really is, it also was a result of his attempting to fashion the discreet de facto bigotry of his fundamental political philosophy — "I am not a racist, although almost every social policy I champion inevitably has resulted in terribly racist outcomes." — into something more palatable, which the kids at Howard would not buy if it came with a free introductory bag of emeralds. [my emphasis]
On this story, see also Rachel Tabachnick's Ron Paul Curriculum Launched by Reconstructionist Gary North and Neo-Confederate Thomas Woods Talk to Action 04/09/2013, who notes that Woods proudly describes himself as a founder of the white racist and overtly neo-Confederate League of the South:

Woods is from Massachusetts with degrees from Harvard and Columbia, but he has described himself as one of "the founders of the League of the South." He is also affiliated with the Abbeville Institute, described by the Chronicle of Higher Education as a group of 64 scholars nostalgic for the Old South and Secession. Time Magazine described the institute, founded by Emory University professor Donald Livingston, as a group of "Lincoln loathers." The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed the Abbeville Institute founder as one of the leaders in the modern neo-Confederate movement and, as described in a Chronicle of Higher Education article, pointed out the following quote in its mission statement.
I wrote in my earlier post on Baby Doc's speech that I don't think his Howard University speech was really aimed at an African-American audience but rather at Republican white base voters. Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Journey to Mecca The Atlantic Online 04/15/2013 is more generous in that regard, writing:

I think Rand Paul deserves credit. These sorts of speeches are often done by conservatives as a way of signaling to moderate whites that they aren't racist. ... I think Paul's was different. I can't remember a potential Republican presidential candidate standing before a group of black students like that and actually taking questions. And these were not plants. Paul got the full brunt of a school where black history and politics are the air.
He then proceeds to critique his performance and obvious lack of preparation. "It's not so much that Rand Paul is a Republican that matters, its his obvious lack of either good African-American advisers, or advisors who simply cared enough to do some recon. Someone who knew Howard could have told him that he was walking into a lion's den. This is the real and hard value of diversity ..."

But in the subsequent post The Limits of Good Faith 04/105/2013, he was already repenting his generosity. It seems that when Baby Doc was later asked about his reception at Howard, he fell back on standard white-whining that the mean black people were pickin' on him: "I think some think a white person is not allowed to talk about black history ... which I think is unfair." And Coates concludes:

Rand Paul went to Howard University, lied, and then got his ass kicked. That's not so bad. I got my ass kicked regularly at Howard. That was the reason my parents sent me there. But having gotten his ass kicked, his answer is to not to reflect but to make an allegation of racial discrimination.

One of the things I try to do in my work is -- in general -- take people at their word. It's very hard to communicate about anything without good faith. This, of course, assumes that communication is the goal. That was my assumption about Rand Paul. I was clearly wrong.

Elspeth Reeve in Rand Paul's Twisted History Blames GOP Race Problem on Depression-Era Gifts The Atlantic Wire 04/10/2013 takes on some of Baby Doc's revisionist history:

Rand Paul's explanation for how Republicans lost the support of black voters sounds a lot like Mitt Romney's explanation for why he lost the 2012 election — that Obama won because he offered "gifts," "especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people." Rand Paul's explanation is wrong. Paul did not mention that the New Deal is why white people voted for Democrats, too. ...

Paul only got to it when asked by a student whether he was from the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln or "post-1968 Republican party — Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan." Paul disagreed that there was any difference between the Lincoln party and the Reagan one. "People perceive those as being completely different parties," Paul said. ...

There is a difference! Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 general election campaign near Philadelphia, Mississippi, a place that is solely famous for being the site of three civil rights murders. Reagan invented "welfare queens." In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich said he would crack down on crime by building emergency prisons and advertising longer sentences on "MTV and rap radio." Rand Paul's father Ron Paul made millions of dollars selling newsletters that warned of a looming "race war." This is not disputed history. Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman apologized for the Southern Strategy in 2005.

Tags: , ,

Political violence and the Boston Marathon bombing (Updated)

Sadly, David Sirota is pointing to a grim reality here, Bombings like the Boston Marathon tragedy have become the 'new normal' 04/15/2013:



(Update: Digby complains about what I take to be a different twist on the "new normal" in connection with yesterday's bombing in Oh, I guess it's time to start mawkishly proclaiming a "new normal" Hullabaloo 04/16/2013. I think the phrase "new normal" is getting kind of hackneyed. But what I think Sirota gets right is that mass-casualty attacks have become accepted in some way as more routine over the last few years, in large part thanks to the gun lobby. In cold business calculations - "cold, dead hands" calculations, we might say - these mass casualty events are good for the firearms business. And the NRA uses them successfully to market around. General sensitivities have not yet been corrupted to the point that the NRA could explicitly say that recurrent mass-casualty attacks should be viewed as acceptable. But that's what their argument comes down to: their version of the Second Amendment accepts these events as the price of the "freedom" of gun proliferation for which they fight.)

Charlie Pierce, who has been reporting from Boston, has some useful reflections on political violence, without jumping to any conclusions about who may have been behind the Boston Marathon bombing. In The Morning After Esquire Politics Blog 04/16/2013 he writes:

It is in no way "politicizing" the events by mentioning that history teaches us that, on events like this, the universe of suspects is wider than many people would like to believe. All indications are that, one way or another, the bombing was a political act. It may have been the political act of madmen, but it was a political act, and it does us no good to pretend — as Chris Matthews attempted to do last night — that it was not. Somehow, somewhere, this act came from a dark vein of violence in somebody's politics. Those politics may be fashioned from mania, or even sociopathy, but they are fashioned out of politics nonetheless, and of the collapse of the faith that we can govern ourselves as we govern our passions, and that collapse is not the province of the mad or the angry. That collapse is caused by something deeply endemic in our systems and in ourselves. We have tolerated unreasoning hatred for far too long. We have abandoned the rational for the comfortable, and we have abandoned the empirical for the comfortably insane. We have given too much oxygen to the flame. ...

By six last night, you could tell the Feds were taking over the operation in and around Copley Square. The uniformed Boston cops were back out in the street, and a lot of people in windbreakers and earpieces popped up from around every corner, and the silly argument about whether the president should have said "terrorism" or not seemed particularly moot. Terrorism is in the mind of the terrorized, and there was nobody idly walking through Copley Square as Monday evening became Monday night. The sun came up this morning on a garrisoned city. Some people think one thing about that, and some people think another. But too many people think something completely insane, and that scares the hell out of me. In our politics, we must we must look the real monster in the eye, and not create phantoms because they are more easily killed. We have lost faith in that in which we cannot lose faith and survive. As investigators crawl over Copley Square, they might as well be looking for the democratic soul of a nation gone a bit mad.
Those comments are important, because in the post-9/11 era, the default responses to acts of terrorism from the media and authorities have tended to fall into two categories: anti-Muslim religious stereotyping and reductionist psychologizing.

Real acts and plots of terrorism involving Muslims are often reported with no real analysis or even basic factual reporting about the politics involved in them. Pierce is taking a speculative step in saying, "Somehow, somewhere, this act came from a dark vein of violence in somebody's politics." But his immediately following reminder is very important, "Those politics may be fashioned from mania, or even sociopathy, but they are fashioned out of politics nonetheless."

He's apparently drawing a conclusion from the nature of the attack, which was obviously designed not just to kill a lot of people but to spread confusion and terror.

When non-Muslims are involved, the reporting tends to be on the personal psychology of the perpetrator. We've had a string of terrorist and/or mass-casualty incidents over the past several years that have involved people with, yes, affinities for radical right politics. And the mainstream media is just plain scared to go there. So we have a string of incidents from assorted "lone nuts", which without any coherent and reality-based explanations of what the connections might be only serves to mystify the events and make them more terrifying.

Too many people are more than happy to use incidents like this to reinforce their preferred narrative of reality, even when it may be effectively irrelevant. (Over to you, Westboro Baptist!) But it's a problem that too much of the reporting and commentary doesn't provide the meaningful context to help us all interpret what is happening with such a series of events.

It's idiotic and bad religion, too, for fundamentalist Christians to say that God did this bombing, or used this bombing or whatever mealy-mouth qualifications someone might want to put on it, to punish the country for allowing gays and lesbians to live without being imprisoned.

But if it were to turn out to be some group behind this bombing that is particularly fixated with hating on gays, that would be relevant to understand how that train of influence worked to produced random killings and maiming in the Boston Marathon. And self-righteous patriotic moralism and hate-filled jingoism also shouldn't stop us from looking at the political motives of even foreign terrorist groups. As I've said here numerous times over the years, the idea that you shouldn't try to understand the ideas of The Enemy is a ridiculous and impractical concept. But it is useful if you want to paint them as Evil And Nothing But Evil.

Stephen Walt writes in On the Boston Marathon attacks Foreign Policy 04/16/2013:

There are now over 7 billion human beings on this planet, and roughly 313 million citizens here in America. It is inevitable that a tiny handful of these individuals will be driven ... to commit deliberate acts of violence against innocent people. And there is no reasonable way to prevent a few of those individuals from getting their hands on the materials needed to make a bomb. It has happened in Northern Ireland, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Istanbul, in Bali, at abortion clinics here in the United States. It has happened in the Moscow subway, in Madrid, and in Oklahoma City. Sometimes a political group is responsible; sometimes it is just an angry and warped individual. It happened yesterday, as well as throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

We should by all means adopt prudent security procedures -- as Massachusetts officials did before yesterday's race -- and revise and update those procedures in light of experience. And when we do know what motivated this particular attack, we should consider if there was anything that we might have done to prevent the perpetrators from embarking on their evil course. We should be brave and honest enough to ask if this was some sort of warped response to something we had done and consider whether what we had done was appropriate or not. To ask that question in no way justifies the slaughter of innocents, but understanding a criminal's motivations might be part of making such events less likely in the future.

But we are never going to return to some sort of peaceful Arcadia where America -- or the rest of the world -- is totally immune from senseless acts of violence like this one. There is no perfect defense and there never will be. And so our larger task is to build a resilient society that comes together when these tragedies occur, understands that the ultimate danger is limited, and that refuses to bend in the face of a sudden, shocking, and cowardly attack.
Tags:

The course of the euro crisis and its ugly results so far

Paul Krugman does a quick review of the course of the euro crisis in Europe in Brief 04/15/2013. He recalls the flow of capital from the wealthier northern countries to the southern "periphery" nations like Greece and Spain. Then there was the collapse that followed, with the speculative attacks on national bonds. Then came the hammer of the austerity policies insisted upon by German Chancellor Angela "Frau Fritz" Merkel. There were a couple of close calls where the euro seemed on the verge of imminent collapse that quick fixes by EU and the ECB were able to stave off.

But the austerity remains. And it's a killer:

The problem was greatly exacerbated, however, when the combination of slumping revenues and the prospect of protracted economic weakness led to large budget deficits and concerns about solvency, even in countries like Spain that entered the crisis with budget surpluses and low debt. There was panic in the bond market — and as a condition for aid, the European core demanded harsh austerity programs.

Austerity, in turn, led to much deeper slumps in the periphery — and because peripheral austerity was not offset by expansion in the core, the result was in fact a slump for the European economy as a whole. One consequence has been
that austerity is failing even on its own terms: key measures like debt/GDP ratios have gotten worse, not better.

I mean, it's really a killer. Dawn Foster reports in From heart attacks to maternal care: the human cost of austerity in Greece Open Democracy 04/12/2013 on how Frau Fritz' austerity squeeze if affecting people's access to health care in Greece:

Studying 22,093 patients admitted to Kalamata’s General Hospital, researchers noted a distinct spike when comparing pre-crisis and crisis periods, especially amongst women. Pre-crisis (January 2004-December 2007) Kalamata recorded 841 heart attacks, compared to 1,084 between January 2008 and December 2011, an overall increase of 29%. In women, heart attacks rose by 39.2%, with acute myocardial infarctions spiking by 51%.

Dr Emannouil Makaris, presenting his findings at a research talk at the American College of Cardiology’s annual meeting, noted the particularly high increase in women was likely to be down to joblessness, and economic and domestic burdens: “Greek women have a higher unemployment rate than men, they are responsible for child care, and they also work outside the home - a formula for stress. Unemployment is a stressful event and stress is connected with heart disease, but other issues also come with financial difficulties. In these times a lot of people do not have money to buy medications or go to their primary care doctor. The cost to society is high.” Throughout the crisis, unemployment rates for women in Greece have been far higher than for men of similar ages. Amongst economically active women, the unemployment rate currently stands at 29.3%, whereas for Greek men, the figure is 24.3%.

Amongst young women, the unemployment rate is even higher, at 65% - and that's a conservative estimate, not adjusting for those putting off seeking employment by continuing education, or the diaspora, who've emigrated to seek employment elsewhere.
Maternity care has also suffered, as well as access to medicines:

After months of stalling negotiations over unpaid bills, the German pharmaceuticals group Merck halted supplies of cancer drug Erbitux to publicly owned Greek hospitals. This fuelled concerns that many other drug supplies would follow suit, as many pharmacies reported huge difficulties in gaining supplies of commonly prescribed drugs in large cities such as Athens and Thessaloniki. The Red Cross reported they were to gradually halve their supplies of blood to Greece by 2020 after delays in state payments, and state doctors across Greece reported they were owed back pay of 130 million euros with Thessaloniki doctors refusing to treat any patients other than emergency cases until they were paid.
There's quite a bit of whining in the German press about people in Greece and other places making mean caricatures of German officials, like this one of her and her Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble from Yannis Ioannou 04/15/2013. It's kind of a "why do they hate us?" kind of phenomenon:


Krugman concludes his post on the euro crisis by saying:

And European officials remain in deep denial about the fundamentals of the situation. They continue to define the problem as one of fiscal profligacy, which is only part of the story even for Greece, and none of the story elsewhere. They keep declaring success for austerity and internal devaluation, using any excuse at hand: a spurious surge in measured Irish productivity becomes evidence that internal devaluation is working, the decline in bond yields following ECB intervention is proclaimed as a vindication of austerity.

So that’s where we are. And it's hard to envisage a happy ending.
Tags: , , , , ,

Monday, April 15, 2013

Assimilating mass violence

One of my friends just posted on Facebook that whoever is behind the Boston bombing today, she hope we, mean

I replied, I don't know, maybe the rhetoric needs to be dialed up in some ways. The first reports on these things are always wrong in some significant ways, so I'm not making any assumptions. Obviously, multiple bombs planned to go off at the same time wasn't just "boys will be boys" or whatever. I still think it was a big mistake for Obama to respond to the attempted assassination of Gaby Giffords with a vague call for "civility."

And "we're" - especially the pundits who are convinced they speak for the regular Real American - developing a jaded attitude toward mass murder attempts. If it's some rightwinger trying to stop the Agenda 21 Conspiracy, our star pundits will say it's another "lone nut." If its someone Muslim behind it, we'll probably bomb another village in Pakistan or Somalia and say we killed some important Terrorist (Al Qaeda's Number Two! again) with some unfortunate collateral women and children collateral damage. (Any grown men we automatically count as Terrorists.) Maybe we can have another round of "Why Do They Hate Us?"

And, whoever did it, the NRA will use it for a new round of the-scary-Negro-President-is-coming-to-confiscate-your-huntin'-rifles, and gun and ammo sales will spike up again. It's become standard firearms industry marketing.

The Obama-is-behind-it and they're-coming-for-your-guns crowd are already at it hard. Conspiracy-theory guru mongerer Alex Jones already has one like that going. There's a significant portion of the public to whom actual facts are irrelevant. The only certainty about it right now is that the NRA will use it for marketing even more guns and ammo.

And, of course, some neocon is undoubtedly trying to scare up an Iranian connection.

Mass killings have become a routine fact of American life. And we are developing standard rituals for responding to them. That's not a bad thing in itself, they've become a frequently recurring event in the US, and you have to find some way to adjust to something that has become to an amazing degree accepted as normal in our culture.

We'll soon see which type predominate after this one.

Tags:

Paranoid constructions of the Librul Media and the Kermit Gosnell case

Claiming there is a Liberal Media conspiracy against all right-thinking Christian white folks has been a staple of Republican conservative propaganda in more-or-less its current form since Vice President and later convicted felon Spiro Agnew made his well-publicized attacks on The Media during the Nixon Administration. It has its precedents in the traditional of paranoid political thinking: the Jewish media conspiracy of the 1930s, the secret Communists in Hollywood, the South-hating Yankee media during the civil rights movement.

It's become a foundational myth (in Georges Sorel's sense) of today's Republican Party.

Ironically, its usage by conservative becomes more and more intense, long after the point (the Iraq War latest) where one sure mark of a living breathing liberal was that they didn't regard the mainstream media as "liberal" or even especially competent as news media.

Since conservative opinion and news outlets market themselves non-stop against "the liberal media," it seems a little odd to think of a particular outcropping of the phenomenon being an upsurge. To have an upsurge, you would need to have a slacking off every now and then!

Like many favorite claims of Republicans these days, the Librul-Media-ignored-it claim on this case has some basic empirical problems, as Dashiell Bennett explains in The Gosnell Trial Is About Many Thing, but Media Bias Isn't One of Them The Atlantic Wire 04/12/2013:

To begin with, the idea that the trial hasn't been covered by news outlets is disproved by a cursory search of the archives. Most major outlets have written something about the trial. In fact, a lot of them did so two years ago when the story first broke. There hasn't been as much coverage in the last three months, but that's partly because the 280-page grand jury report has been available for some time, and the "headline-worthy testimony" has not been kept secret. If you haven't heard about it until this week, it's only because you were reading the wrong websites. (And local outlets are doing a great job and aren't that hard to find.)
But the fact that it's not true won't stop the antiabortionists from claiming it. In the name of Jesus, of course. Because when you're out to "save the lives" of "unborn babies", such is considered perfectly legitimate by the anti-choice movement: "Those in the media who promote abortion have their reasons for wanting to keep quiet about the atrocities of former abortionist, Kermit Gosnell," writes Dan Delzell in the Christian Post (The Face of America in Gosnell's Mirror 04/15/2013). That's a pretty mealy-mouthed way of putting it, of course. If criticized, he claim he didn't say the Librul Media was doing that, only that they had good reason to do so.

Media Matters has several pieces about the Gosnell case and the conservative conspiracy-mongering about he Librul Media in connection with:

Eric Boehlert, While Ignoring Gosnell Trial, NY Post Condemns 'Liberal Media' For Ignoring Gosnell Trial 04/12/2013.

Ari Rabin-Hav, The Anti-Choice Monster 04/12/2013

Chelsea Rudman, Erin Burnett Latest In Media To Push Claim That "The Left" Ignored Gosnell Trial After She Ignored Gosnell Trial 04/12/2013

Oliver Willis, After Spending 21 Minutes Covering Arias Trial, Fox's The Five Attack Media For Covering Arias But Not Gosnell 04/12/2013

Jeremy Holden, How The Kermit Gosnell Case Is An Indictment On [sic] The Anti-Choice Movement 04/15/2013

At Salon, Alex Seitz-Wald takes up the question, On Gosnell "blackout," where were conservatives before this week? 04/12/2013: "A search of the Congressional Record for the 112th Congress (2011-2012) turns up zero mentions for Gosnell, while a search of the current 113th Congress finds three — all from yesterday."

Tags: