Carpe's Civics Musings

[carpedm9587]

I have a Facebook page where I regularly engage in civics-related exchanges with followers. Since most of my followers tend to think as I do, it is a bit of a bubble. While I value the insights offered there, they tend to align with my own too often for my own satisfaction. So I thought I would start this thread and "double-post" those musings. It seems wasteful to start a new thread for each topic, so I just thought I'd create one thread where I could post those political/civics meanderings as they are written and see what manifests from "the loyal opposition." Now that (hopefully), Orange Man's days are numbered, I'd like to hope the damage he has done to our sense of all being Americans can be reversed. A little discourse might contribute to that?

My only request is that the discussion here be about the issues, and not the individuals. Heated debate/discussion is welcome. Personal attacks are not.

My post this morning is here and you are certainly welcome to visit my page and comment more publicly. It reads as follows (if you'd rather comment/discuss here):

One of the things that has been on my mind for some time now is the issue of racism and paternalism/maternalism. Permit me to explain.

One of the accusations made by many on the right, and regularly leveled by GOP leadership, is that "the left" and Democrats have a condescending, "we have to fix things for black people attitude," that paternalistically/maternalistically assumes that black people (and other minorities) cannot do for themselves and have to be "lifted out of their situation."

As with so many other arguments coming from this quarter, there is a grain of truth buried in the argument that has been blown way out of proportion for political purposes. It would indeed be condescending to believe that black people (or any group) are incapable of doing for themselves and need "the help of the white person" in order to succeed. It would be yet another form of racism that needs to be erased. I have become a fan of the word "eracism" lately!

While I am sure there are some people who actually hold that view (which I find repulsive), that is not what I hear when I hear most people talking about the need to act on behalf of minorities. What I hear is subtly, but importantly, different.

It is not a matter of having to "help the poor black person" so they can succeed; it is a matter of carefully examining the systems and structures we have put in place that have unjustly obstructed this population and made their success more difficult for them. And when I say "we," I mean white America.

For the majority of the history of this country, it's leaders have been predominantly white. Before 1867, during the formative years of this nation, there were five people of color elected to office in the entire nation. Two served in local capacities (e.g., school boards) and three served in state legislatures (Vermont and Massachusetts). After the Civil War, black representatives began to emerge widely (especially in the south), only to be confronted with a growing body of Jim Crow laws that eventually led to their exclusion from office. The 116th Congress (the one currently sitting) has the largest black representation by percentage in history (just below 10.5%, 56 representatives/senators), yet it still lags behind the general population distribution (13.4% black). There is no question that white men have been the dominant political force in the U.S. since its inception. Only now are we beginning to approach alignment between the general population and representation at the federal level. The individual states are all over the map.

The result of this misalignment is a bevy of systems and structures that were explicitly designed to suppress black success, or had as an unintended consequence that same effect. If you doubt this, I suggest you look at all of the data about the status of the black community. In metric after metric, they are at a disadvantage as a group. As a group and on average, they own fewer homes, have less wealth, have fewer businesses, the profitability of those businesses is less, have a lower income level, are rejected for rentals at a greater rate, have a lower level of education, are disqualified for loans at a higher rate, have their resumes rejected at a higher rate, are incarcerated at a higher rate, and the list goes on and on. A black person is even more likely to be rejected as a client for an Uber or AirBnB, and a black driver or AirBnB renter has their property/ride rejected by white clients at a higher rate. Lately, they have been dying from Covid at a higher rate and are disproportionately serving in "essential" and "at risk" positions. Note that all of these are averages; there are indeed many success stories. But they are exceptions - not the rule. When the disadvantage cuts so widely across so many metrics, the just thing to do is ask "why" and address the answers to that question with action.

This is what I hear being called for by Democrats and the left. It is not, "oh you poor black person - let me help you because you cannot do it for yourself." It is more, "I was not aware that we had/have put this many obstacles in your way - and that is unjust. We need to remove them, and we need to address the damage the long history of those obstacles has done."

But that requires some painful self-reflection, individually and as a nation. It requires acknowledging that we have ALL contributed to these systems and structures, often unknowingly. It means we need to overcome our "white fragility" and be willing to engage in some honest self-reflection as individuals and as a society. And the black community is only one minority that has been so affected. There are issues related to most minorities in our society, and Native Americans jump to the top of that list. But we also have had sad histories with Latinos and the Asian community as well.

One of my heroes is Martin Luther King. A flawed man in many ways, he certainly had a gift with words and vision. He summed all of this up most eloquently when he said, "It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps."

[seanD]

MLK was fighting for injustice during an era there really was racial injustice and when actual racist policy by the US government was being implemented. This just sounds more like "White Fragility," critical race theory hokum.

[seer]

Tell me Carp, how do you get 70% of absent fathers back into the home? That has to be a major driver in all this. And what can I do in 2020 that a black man can't? And no, I haven't contributed to these systems and structures - period.

[CivilDiscourse]

I have a Facebook page where I regularly engage in civics-related exchanges with followers. Since most of my followers tend to think as I do, it is a bit of a bubble. While I value the insights offered there, they tend to align with my own too often for my own satisfaction. So I thought I would start this thread and "double-post" those musings. It seems wasteful to start a new thread for each topic, so I just thought I'd create one thread where I could post those political/civics meanderings as they are written and see what manifests from "the loyal opposition." Now that (hopefully), Orange Man's days are numbered, I'd like to hope the damage he has done to our sense of all being Americans can be reversed. A little discourse might contribute to that?

My only request is that the discussion here be about the issues, and not the individuals. Heated debate/discussion is welcome. Personal attacks are not.

My post this morning is here and you are certainly welcome to visit my page and comment more publicly. It reads as follows (if you'd rather comment/discuss here):

One of the things that has been on my mind for some time now is the issue of racism and paternalism/maternalism. Permit me to explain.

One of the accusations made by many on the right, and regularly leveled by GOP leadership, is that "the left" and Democrats have a condescending, "we have to fix things for black people attitude," that paternalistically/maternalistically assumes that black people (and other minorities) cannot do for themselves and have to be "lifted out of their situation."

As with so many other arguments coming from this quarter, there is a grain of truth buried in the argument that has been blown way out of proportion for political purposes. It would indeed be condescending to believe that black people (or any group) are incapable of doing for themselves and need "the help of the white person" in order to succeed. It would be yet another form of racism that needs to be erased. I have become a fan of the word "eracism" lately!

While I am sure there are some people who actually hold that view (which I find repulsive), that is not what I hear when I hear most people talking about the need to act on behalf of minorities. What I hear is subtly, but importantly, different.

It is not a matter of having to "help the poor black person" so they can succeed; it is a matter of carefully examining the systems and structures we have put in place that have unjustly obstructed this population and made their success more difficult for them. And when I say "we," I mean white America.

For the majority of the history of this country, it's leaders have been predominantly white. Before 1867, during the formative years of this nation, there were five people of color elected to office in the entire nation. Two served in local capacities (e.g., school boards) and three served in state legislatures (Vermont and Massachusetts). After the Civil War, black representatives began to emerge widely (especially in the south), only to be confronted with a growing body of Jim Crow laws that eventually led to their exclusion from office. The 116th Congress (the one currently sitting) has the largest black representation by percentage in history (just below 10.5%, 56 representatives/senators), yet it still lags behind the general population distribution (13.4% black). There is no question that white men have been the dominant political force in the U.S. since its inception. Only now are we beginning to approach alignment between the general population and representation at the federal level. The individual states are all over the map.

The result of this misalignment is a bevy of systems and structures that were explicitly designed to suppress black success, or had as an unintended consequence that same effect. If you doubt this, I suggest you look at all of the data about the status of the black community. In metric after metric, they are at a disadvantage as a group. As a group and on average, they own fewer homes, have less wealth, have fewer businesses, the profitability of those businesses is less, have a lower income level, are rejected for rentals at a greater rate, have a lower level of education, are disqualified for loans at a higher rate, have their resumes rejected at a higher rate, are incarcerated at a higher rate, and the list goes on and on. A black person is even more likely to be rejected as a client for an Uber or AirBnB, and a black driver or AirBnB renter has their property/ride rejected by white clients at a higher rate. Lately, they have been dying from Covid at a higher rate and are disproportionately serving in "essential" and "at risk" positions. Note that all of these are averages; there are indeed many success stories. But they are exceptions - not the rule. When the disadvantage cuts so widely across so many metrics, the just thing to do is ask "why" and address the answers to that question with action.

This is what I hear being called for by Democrats and the left. It is not, "oh you poor black person - let me help you because you cannot do it for yourself." It is more, "I was not aware that we had/have put this many obstacles in your way - and that is unjust. We need to remove them, and we need to address the damage the long history of those obstacles has done."

But that requires some painful self-reflection, individually and as a nation. It requires acknowledging that we have ALL contributed to these systems and structures, often unknowingly. It means we need to overcome our "white fragility" and be willing to engage in some honest self-reflection as individuals and as a society. And the black community is only one minority that has been so affected. There are issues related to most minorities in our society, and Native Americans jump to the top of that list. But we also have had sad histories with Latinos and the Asian community as well.

One of my heroes is Martin Luther King. A flawed man in many ways, he certainly had a gift with words and vision. He summed all of this up most eloquently when he said, "It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps."

The thing about certain types of racism is that it's not always so overt.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/

A new study suggests that the words you use may depend on whether the club secretary’s name is Emily (“a stereotypically White name,” as the study says) or Lakisha (“a stereotypically Black name”). If you’re a white liberal writing to Emily, you might use words like “melancholy” or “euphoric” to describe the mood of the book, whereas you might trade these terms out for the simpler “sad” or “happy” if you’re corresponding with Lakisha.
But if you’re a white conservative, your diction won’t depend on the presumed race of your interlocutor.

This racial and political disparity is among the discoveries made by a pair of social psychologists in a paper forthcoming in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the American Psychological Association. Cydney Dupree, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Yale School of Management, and Susan Fiske, a professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton, documented what they call a “competence downshift” exhibited by white liberals in interactions with racial minorities, and with black people in particular.

© Copyright Original Source

So, I don't think that there is so much an overt paternalism type bias, but more along the lines of a subtle one. "Blacks won't succeed until we (like lawnmower parents) get rid of the obstacles in their way." In addition, there is a "we know better than them" attitude that was exemplified by statements like Biden's "you ain't black" comment, or Chelsea Handlers "I had to remind him he was a black man and can't vote republican" statement.

[Mountain Man]

I'm not racist, I don't personally know anybody who is racist, and I don't personally know anybody who is a victim of racism, so I'm good.

Of course the irony here is that carpe voted for a guy with an actual history of racism, who has made multiple racist comments, and worked hard to pass laws that supported racist policies.

[seanD]

The thing about certain types of racism is that it's not always so overt.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/

A new study suggests that the words you use may depend on whether the club secretary’s name is Emily (“a stereotypically White name,” as the study says) or Lakisha (“a stereotypically Black name”). If you’re a white liberal writing to Emily, you might use words like “melancholy” or “euphoric” to describe the mood of the book, whereas you might trade these terms out for the simpler “sad” or “happy” if you’re corresponding with Lakisha.
But if you’re a white conservative, your diction won’t depend on the presumed race of your interlocutor.

This racial and political disparity is among the discoveries made by a pair of social psychologists in a paper forthcoming in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the American Psychological Association. Cydney Dupree, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Yale School of Management, and Susan Fiske, a professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton, documented what they call a “competence downshift” exhibited by white liberals in interactions with racial minorities, and with black people in particular.

© Copyright Original Source

So, I don't think that there is so much an overt paternalism type bias, but more along the lines of a subtle one. "Blacks won't succeed until we (like lawnmower parents) get rid of the obstacles in their way." In addition, there is a "we know better than them" attitude that was exemplified by statements like Biden's "you ain't black" comment, or Chelsea Handlers "I had to remind him he was a black man and can't vote republican" statement.

The thing is, liberals aren't so subtle about their racism. That's what's so ironic about all this. It's quite overt. It's just that they've somehow managed to twist their racism into a weird type of virtue, and democrats use it to their political advantage.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not racist, I don't personally know anybody who is racist, and I don't personally know anybody who is a victim of racism, so I'm good.

Of course the irony here is that carpe voted for a guy with an actual history of racism, who has made multiple racist comments, and worked hard to pass laws that supported racist policies.

Interesting. I don't remember posting who I voted for...or even if I voted.

[carpedm9587]

My thanks to those who responded on the previous post. I'm not going to respond to every response. I am mostly interested in reading the responses and listening. Below is yesterday's post, and the original can be found here.

My thoughts, this morning, go to a few things I heard on my endless podcasts, and relate (once again) to politics and the state of the GOP. Those thoughts are largely triggered by an episode of "The Federalist Radio Hour" that featured my old "friend" Newt Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich is the man who, in the 1990s, ushered in the age of personal attack and framing the opposition as "the enemy" and politics as "war." He used all of that language throughout his career, and continues to do so to this day. He set the stage for the mantra that Fox News would pick up, and that would produce such a chain of GOP leaders as Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Sarah Palin, Mike Pence, Stephen Miller, Kelly Ann Conway, Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, Steve King, Michele Bachmann, and all the rest of their ilk. The logical progression (and hopefully the end?) of this process is one Donald Trump. Gingrich's strategy was also mirrored by, and/or led to the emergence of, such pundits as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and all of the rest of the pundits from the right prone to personal attacks, spreading of disinformation, and acceptance of debunked conspiracy theories.

In short, Gingrich set the stage for the GOP to abandon truth in favor of a politically driven narrative designed to "win the war" at all costs. His interview with "The Federalist Radio Hour" was basically a continuation of this strategy as he pumped out lie after lie after lie, all designed to promote a narrative to maintain Trump's base and his political power. Two of them jumped out at me more than the rest.

One was where he opined that the Democrats had no message and could not even name three things they stood for. This was highly ironic coming from a party that this year has no published party platform and simply stands for "whatever Trump wants," and which has turned its back on many of the things the GOP used to stand for, including fiscal responsibility, truth and ethics in government, and a strong stance against international enemies. I can name many things the Democrats stand for and have repeatedly made the center of their campaigning. They include such things as universal healthcare, a shift of the tax burden from the poor and middle class to the higher income members of our society, fair wage, dealing with the ongoing pandemic, recovering the U.S. economy, reproductive rights, and addressing systemic racism. You have to be relatively blind and deaf to be able to make the claim that "Democrats don't stand for anything."

And then there is the claim he made that the "Republican party is the party of the working class." I almost snorted my coffee up my nose. In what universe does this man live? Under Trump, the trend for both wealth and income to skew to the upper earners has continued. In 1970 the poorest earned 10% of all income, the wealthy earned 28% of all income, and the middle class earned 62% of all income. In 2019 the numbers were 9%, 48%, and 43% respectively. The wealthy now earn more (despite there being far fewer of them) than all of the middle class combined. The 2018 tax cuts furthered that divide, throwing a sop to the middle class to keep them appeased while the wealthy walked away with a windfall. The top 5% not only had an increased after-tax income that exceeded that of any other class (as is to be expected), but also had a greater percentage increase (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/feat...s-and-jobs-act).

Add to that resistance to a fair wage, universal healthcare, and many benefits enjoyed by the citizens of most other developed nations, and the result is the Republican party has no more claim to being the "party of the working class" than John Merrick had to be Miss America. Every attempt to actually do something for the working class is resisted by the Republican party under the umbrella of "that's socialism," conveniently ignoring that the socialistic model pays for our army, road system, social security, and healthcare for the poor and elderly. If we add to that the current resistance, widely promoted by the Republican party, to basic actions to keep all of us safer from the coronavirus (mask wearing, social distancing, etc.), we can completely summarize the Republican party today as the party of death/illness and the party of the wealthy.

I want to be careful here. My words are about the party as it is currently led, and the vast majority of the party membership. Trump would have no power whatsoever were it not for the broad support/acceptance/approval he has from "his base," and his base comprises the vast majority of the Republican party. There are still Republicans out there who have not bent the knee to Trump and not let go of the original ideals of the Republican party. Many of them are working hard to restore the Republican party to what it once was. I wish them well, and I truly hope they succeed. If they fail, our country faces continuing dark days indeed, despite the end of Mr. Trump's administration.

[carpedm9587]

'Nuff said...

[Mountain Man]

Interesting. I don't remember posting who I voted for...or even if I voted.

I know you didn't vote for Trump, and Biden was the only other viable choice ("viable" only in the sense that he's the only other candidate who stood any chance of winning), and I would be very surprised if you sat this election out given your overt hatred of Trump and outspoken desire to see him removed from the White House, so the logical conclusion is that you voted for Racist Joe.

[seanD]

I'm not racist, I don't personally know anybody who is racist, and I don't personally know anybody who is a victim of racism, so I'm good.

Of course the irony here is that carpe voted for a guy with an actual history of racism, who has made multiple racist comments, and worked hard to pass laws that supported racist policies.

Biden was working with literal southern white supremacists to create actual government policy against blacks about the time MLK was fighting against it. The irony of the OP would be funny if it wasn't so terrifyingly Orwellian.

[carpedm9587]

Today's post can be found here, and reads as follows:

The current political state of affairs is on my mind, and I have to admit that I have some significant concerns. The basis of those concerns arises from a combination of several facts.

Fact 1: Mr. Trump is largely incapable of admitting defeat and/or acknowledging error. He has publicly acknowledged his difficulty with accepting defeat and his behavior over his professional career, especially since the infamous ride down the escalator, is a testament to his inability to admit error. He has even noted that his philosophy is that acknowledging error and/or apologizing is a sign of weakness.

Fact 2: After election day, Mr. Trump moved swiftly to displace Mark Esper from the Secretary of Defense position and replace him with a well-known "yes man." He has since also moved to replace many top-echelon military positions with fairly well-known and familiar Trump advocates - creating another layer of "yes men" at the highest levels of the military. For months he has been activating military intervention in U.S. cities and has been thwarted in that by Mr. Esper and high-level military personnel.

Fact 3: Mr. Trump has been making unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud for many months now. It began before the election and was targeted at mail-in ballots, and ramped up as the tide of the election turned against him. Thus far, no widespread voter fraud has been substantiated, but it does not stop Mr. Trump from retweeting many published conspiracy theories and bogus claims. He is systematically setting the stage for widespread rejection of the election outcome and whipping his "base" into an activist frenzy.

Fact 4: Mr. Trump has been working hard since the day of the election to file lawsuit after lawsuit in many swing states seeking to invalidate enough ballots to swing the state back into his column. He has gone so far as to protest votes cast for no other reason than the name of the county on the envelope was misspelled. This is no longer an attempt to avoid voter fraud; it is an attempt to have the votes of legal voters discarded over minor technicalities so he can win. That is completely outside the spirit of fair and free and democratic elections. It is a "win-at-any-cost" strategy that blatantly disregards voter intent.

Fact 5: Throughout his presidency, and his professional career, Mr. Trump has shown a blatant disregard for tradition, honor systems, or even decency. He has shown that he considers honor systems and tradition to be things suckers adhere to and an opportunity for him to take advantage and "win."

Fact 6: Trump's base is highly armed. Many of its members have expressed a willingness to use those arms in defense of the U.S. if they perceive the U.S. to be under threat. If they are convinced that the election has been "stolen" by the Democrats, a charge continuously leveled by their hero and cult leader (Mr. Trump), they are likely to see armed force as a justified civil action.

Fact 7: The vast majority of the police unions in the U.S., endorsed Mr. Trump over Mr. Biden, and Mr. Trump has slightly more support in the military than Mr. Biden.

When these considerations are put together, it raises a very ugly possibility: that we are on the road to an attempted coup spearheaded by the former president of the United States if the courts rule against him in his bid to have the election overturned in the courts. His justification would be that he is the actual president of the U.S. and the election was stolen due to widespread voter fraud. The fact that he cannot provide evidence makes no difference; his base has been accepting his claims without adequate evidence for 5+ years now and there is no sign it will stop with this topic. Trump continual attack on the media for the past 5+ years means any media assertion that the election has been fairly and justly won by Biden will be widely rejected by this group.

I think it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the following will unfold: Mr. Trump will continue his legal battle to the final hour. If he is unable to overturn enough states to gain ascendency in the electoral college through the courts or state legislatures, he will refuse to acknowledge the loss and seek to declare martial law and activate the military and local law enforcement to defend his presidency. Along with this will go a call to his "base" and all of the paramilitary organizations he has been encouraging and largely refusing to repudiate since the beginning of his presidency. The U.S. will be launched into an internal civil war because a megalomaniac president cannot accept that he has been defeated.

If this all sounds farfetched, I hope you are right. I hope I am way off the rails and the certification, elector vote, and inauguration will proceed without a hitch with Biden taking his rightful position on January 20th (unless actual voter fraud can be shown or recounts reverse the outcome in any of the states). I cannot help but wonder, however, if the citizens of the U.S. during 1860 had any clue what would be set in motion on December 20th of that year? Did they realize they were about to be embroiled in an armed conflict that would consume the nation for years to come, rippling decades into the future, all the way down to the modern day?

I truly wonder. If I am wrong, I will rejoice. If I am right, I suspect this post will be enough to get me tossed into a gulag.

[carpedm9587]

I know you didn't vote for Trump, and Biden was the only other viable choice ("viable" only in the sense that he's the only other candidate who stood any chance of winning), and I would be very surprised if you sat this election out given your overt hatred of Trump and outspoken desire to see him removed from the White House, so the logical conclusion is that you voted for Racist Joe.

And your guess is incorrect.

[seanD]

And your guess is incorrect.

Yeah right.

[Mountain Man]

And your guess is incorrect.

Really? Even after all your weeping and gnashing of teeth about President Trump, you didn't have the conviction or character to cast a meaningful vote?