At this point in time it's simple to see what drives Trump's statements reflecting his immigration impulses. I would say policy, but that would suggest that there is a policy. What Trump has in mind is to stem the inevitable changing demographics of the United Sates. The white majority is decreasing; the non-white population increasing. For him, and others like him, this change signals not just a tinting of pigmentation, but the eradication of American and Western culture.
To get a full view of what Trump fears as he envisions hordes of Hispanics flooding across the southern border one just has to listen to and read what Pat Buchanan (A Nixon unrepentant supporter) has to say on the subject. Last week on "The Laura Ingraham Show," Buchanan expressed in the clearest terms what he feels is at stake: "This is the great issue of our time. And, the real question is whether Europe has the will and the capacity, and America has the capacity to halt the invasion of the countries until they change the character - political, social, racial, ethnic of the country entirely."
Rather than lamenting the cruel separation of children from their parents, Buchanan dredges up the old racist canard that migrants (foreigners) endanger the purity of a country's culture. In his language one even hears echoes of Germany in the 1930's, within his use of the word, "will." One wonders what inspires Buchanan to see these obviously desperate people who are either seeking asylum or escaping extreme poverty as a threat to the culture of America. Perhaps fear; perhaps malice. In a blog he wrote shortly before his interview with Ingraham he stated his approval of Trump's grasp of the migrant problem: "Trump may be on the wrong side politically and emotionally of the issue of separating migrant kids from their parents. But on the mega-issue--the third world invasion of the West--he is riding the great wave of the future, if the West is to have a future."
For Buchanan, nothing less than the survival of "our civilization" is at stake. Buchanan has spouted similar anti-immigrant rhetoric before against the "Islamic invasion" of Europe. And while there is no doubt Europe has had difficulty assimilating some of the Muslims who settled there, most have integrated quite well into their new countries. As wrong as he is about the cultural calamity he foresees as a result of migrants settling in Europe, Buchanan's analysis of the effects migrants from Latin American countries will have on the United States couldn't be more inaccurate.
When Buchanan and Trump descry the adverse effects of migrants coming across the border, they ignore important facts or "truths" concerning who these people are and what they have to contribute to the United States. Research has established that more than anything else, those who come to America provide needed labor for American businesses. And although the initial strain on public resources that migrants place on local community schools and health services, these parents and their children, over time, give back in taxes more than they take from the system.
As to the threat migrant currently crossing the border pose, Buchanan might observe more closely the American culture and character he fears will be destroyed by these "non-whites." These invaders threatening American culture are in fact more closely aligned with the most rooted cultural practice of the West-religion. The overwhelming majority are Christians, with most professing to be Catholic. For a Catholic such as Buchanan, one would think he'd welcome more Catholics, given his history of animus against Muslims.
And what of this "western culture" Buchanan believes will be extinguished by the presence of these invaders? Western culture? Where? Does he fear for the fate of the American cultural "hegemony" that dominates the globe with its hip-hop music, its MacDonald and Starbucks franchises, its movies? Those who migrate to the United States already have absorbed our culture; they arrive preconditioned to be as American as those of us who have been living here for generations.
Maybe Buchanan worries that the new arrivals won't be steeped in the writings of the founding fathers. Then again, he should look around and discover that most Americans possess very little knowledge or understanding of the Enlightenment tenets upon which the country was founded. But they have what matters most: white skin.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
A Lifetime's Characterization in Just One Day
Before Trump was elected, Americans got a preview of what a Trump presidency might look like. Here was a man who issued racial slurs, ridiculed the handicapped and maligned all his political opponents with vulgar names and descriptions. His supporters defended him, in part, by asserting he would lose his coarse approach once he became president. In other words, he would become "presidential." Or, at least, his white house advisers would reign him in and polish the ragged personality that has always been Trump.
Five hundred days have passed since his inauguration, during which we have watched as Trump has exaggerated or lied countless times. But on Friday, (6/15/18), Trump went "all in." He gave two interviews displaying truly who he is and what he represents. He answered questions regarding the Inspector General report, his administration's handling of the immigration issue and his meeting with Kim Jong Un.
His die hard supporters must be very proud.
While being interviewed by a gaggle of reporters, Trump exulted over the results of the I. G. report. He was thrilled to announce, "If you read the I. G. report, I've been totally exonerated. There was no collusion, there was no obstruction, and if you read the report you'll see that."
The only problem with his account is the I. G. report has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump's statement is a complete fabrication. Do his supporters know that? Do they care?
Another lie Trump slipped into his exchange with reporters covered the obscene policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the southern border with Mexico. When asked to justify this cruel policy, Trump blamed the democrats: "I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That's their law." Of course, this is a lie. There is no law requiring children be separated from their parents. This policy was implemented by the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" which was initiated in April of this year.
When it comes to being caught in a lie, many politicians try to wiggle their way out by employing additional subterfuges, which Trump himself has been known to do. On Friday, Trump tried to justify the misleading statement he dictated about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians during the 2016 campaign that he told to The New York Times as "irrelevant," since he only told it to "the phony, failing New York Times. That's not a statement to a high tribunal of judges. That's a statement to the phony New York Times." Trump's logic: you only have to tell the truth if you're under oath in a court; lying to the media, and consequently, the public, is perfectly acceptable for this president.
Trump also lied on Friday about the length of time Paul Manafort spent as chairman of his campaign and suggested that Michael Flynn did not lie to investigators even though he pleaded guilty to doing just that. Facts do not distinguish truth from lies; for Trump, his point of view determines what is truth.
Chuck Todd of Meet The Press captured the magnitude of Trump's "performance": "Today's Potus performance was breathtaking in the sheer number of provable falsehoods, intentional mischaracterizations and outright lies uttered."
To countenance so many lies and falsehoods, as his base of supporters continually do, must require an extraordinary reservoir of denial or dishonesty on their part. How else could they continue to hear the lies that infest Trump's daily discourse. But chronic, habitual lying is actually Trump's second worst personality trait. Considerably more disturbing for anyone with an allegiance to democracy is Trump's undisguised admiration for dictators.
This admiration for dictators starkly contrasts with Trump's disdain for America's long standing allies. Justin Trudeau is "dishonest and weak" and our European allies are being punished by trade tariffs as if they were adversaries. Yet, for Putin, Duterte and now Kim Jong Un Trump has nothing but praise. When asked on Fox and Friends about Kim visiting the White House, Trump acknowledged the possibility and added, "Hey, he is the head of a country, and I mean he is the strong head. Don't let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want mine to do the same."
What should be clear is Trump's desire to rule as Kim does. He wants to be unfettered by democratic constitutional checks and balances, free from the rule of law and, most importantly, he wants to be celebrated by the media, rather than judged and, yes, criticized by it. Instead of exaltation, which Kim's state controlled media lavish on their dictator, Trump is forced to contend with honest reporting about his mendacious and autocratic personality. If he could only treat the media the way Kim dealt with his uncle who fell asleep during a meeting. After all, he believes that "Our country's biggest enemy is the Fake News so easily promulgated by fools."
I am sorry to say that it is not the press which is our country's biggest enemy; our biggest enemy is Donald Trump.
Five hundred days have passed since his inauguration, during which we have watched as Trump has exaggerated or lied countless times. But on Friday, (6/15/18), Trump went "all in." He gave two interviews displaying truly who he is and what he represents. He answered questions regarding the Inspector General report, his administration's handling of the immigration issue and his meeting with Kim Jong Un.
His die hard supporters must be very proud.
While being interviewed by a gaggle of reporters, Trump exulted over the results of the I. G. report. He was thrilled to announce, "If you read the I. G. report, I've been totally exonerated. There was no collusion, there was no obstruction, and if you read the report you'll see that."
The only problem with his account is the I. G. report has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump's statement is a complete fabrication. Do his supporters know that? Do they care?
Another lie Trump slipped into his exchange with reporters covered the obscene policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the southern border with Mexico. When asked to justify this cruel policy, Trump blamed the democrats: "I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That's their law." Of course, this is a lie. There is no law requiring children be separated from their parents. This policy was implemented by the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" which was initiated in April of this year.
When it comes to being caught in a lie, many politicians try to wiggle their way out by employing additional subterfuges, which Trump himself has been known to do. On Friday, Trump tried to justify the misleading statement he dictated about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians during the 2016 campaign that he told to The New York Times as "irrelevant," since he only told it to "the phony, failing New York Times. That's not a statement to a high tribunal of judges. That's a statement to the phony New York Times." Trump's logic: you only have to tell the truth if you're under oath in a court; lying to the media, and consequently, the public, is perfectly acceptable for this president.
Trump also lied on Friday about the length of time Paul Manafort spent as chairman of his campaign and suggested that Michael Flynn did not lie to investigators even though he pleaded guilty to doing just that. Facts do not distinguish truth from lies; for Trump, his point of view determines what is truth.
Chuck Todd of Meet The Press captured the magnitude of Trump's "performance": "Today's Potus performance was breathtaking in the sheer number of provable falsehoods, intentional mischaracterizations and outright lies uttered."
To countenance so many lies and falsehoods, as his base of supporters continually do, must require an extraordinary reservoir of denial or dishonesty on their part. How else could they continue to hear the lies that infest Trump's daily discourse. But chronic, habitual lying is actually Trump's second worst personality trait. Considerably more disturbing for anyone with an allegiance to democracy is Trump's undisguised admiration for dictators.
This admiration for dictators starkly contrasts with Trump's disdain for America's long standing allies. Justin Trudeau is "dishonest and weak" and our European allies are being punished by trade tariffs as if they were adversaries. Yet, for Putin, Duterte and now Kim Jong Un Trump has nothing but praise. When asked on Fox and Friends about Kim visiting the White House, Trump acknowledged the possibility and added, "Hey, he is the head of a country, and I mean he is the strong head. Don't let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want mine to do the same."
What should be clear is Trump's desire to rule as Kim does. He wants to be unfettered by democratic constitutional checks and balances, free from the rule of law and, most importantly, he wants to be celebrated by the media, rather than judged and, yes, criticized by it. Instead of exaltation, which Kim's state controlled media lavish on their dictator, Trump is forced to contend with honest reporting about his mendacious and autocratic personality. If he could only treat the media the way Kim dealt with his uncle who fell asleep during a meeting. After all, he believes that "Our country's biggest enemy is the Fake News so easily promulgated by fools."
I am sorry to say that it is not the press which is our country's biggest enemy; our biggest enemy is Donald Trump.
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Is David Brooks"Woke"?
A retired New York City police officer, who is a friend of mine, complained recently about the number of young, able-bodied black men and women receiving welfare benefits. When I suggested that his understanding of why people were on "welfare" ( and who is on welfare: more whites than blacks; more single women than men; more elderly than young) might be inaccurate, he brushed aside my point. As a policeman he had seen many examples how inner city able-bodied young blacks lived off welfare. They spent their days lounging on apartment stoops talking and laughing the hours away. He was positive that these individuals took advantage of the system; that if they had the slightest desire to work, they could find jobs and provide for themselves. In his view, it was laziness that kept them dependent on government support. He then offered a specific example to illustrate his absolute certainty that he was right.
He recounted the time some young black mechanics had replaced the tires on his car. He told me that he had chatted cordially with those men and treated them exactly the same way he would had they been white. When they had finished, he rewarded them for their excellent service with a generous tip which they deserved for their hard work. In his mind, his observations of those on welfare in New York together with this anecdote proved conclusively that if able bodied individuals--black or white for that matter--wanted to work, then they would. The jobs were "out there"; they just had to be willingly to get them.
The sweeping generalization he arrived at regarding welfare and work reflects a method by which too many of us form opinions about the motives and behavior of other people. We observe the people around us, note to ourselves what they say and do, then become convinced we know why they act and think as they do. Once that "understanding" settles in our minds, it thickens and solidifies; it hardens into doctrine.
This hardening of doctrine features in David Brooks' latest column, "The Problem With Wokeness." Brooks refers to a comment he made on Meet The Press, in which he said that there is "much less gun violence" in schools than there was in the 1990's. His remark generated a good deal of "hatred on social media," because, as Brooks claims, he failed to maximize the "size of the problem," and therefore "was draining moral urgency and providing comfort to the status quo."
Brooks identifies the criticism of his 'failure' to adequately understand the "size" of the gun violence "problem" as a "mental habit" analogous to the thought process of "wokeness." The term "woke" "means being aware of racial, gender and economic injustice," or as Brooks puts it, "To be woke is to understand the full injustice" of a practice, condition, environment or situation in American society.
In other words, in citing data that show fewer school shooting are occurring today, Brooks believes he is being judged not by the accuracy of his facts, but by the "correctness" of his "perception" of gun violence in schools. Brooks sums up type of thinking (a "frame of mind" he calls it) as follows: "wokeness jams together the perceiving and the proposing. In fact, wokeness puts more emphasis on how you perceive a situation--how woke you are to what is wrong--than what exactly you plan to do about it."
Like the police officer I mentioned above, who knew the motives of every able-bodied black on welfare, Brooks' critics "know" too his motives and summarily denounced him for them. By condemning his motives, these critics can preemptively enclose Brooks and his ideas in a box which has written on it, "Do not open; point of view invalid." Rather than engage his argument, it becomes easier to shut him down and thereby ignore what he has to say. His voice on the subject becomes as empty as the wind and those who are "woke" have silenced someone who, by virtue of his perception of an issue, cannot be "woke."
It may seem unfair to lump those who are arguing for social justice with the police officer whose perception of how and why young men women receive welfare, food stamps or any public assistance is deduced from images tainted by assumptions coloring his thoughts before they have entered his consciousness. It is true that some of the men and women he has seen prefer to receive benefits and avoid work. But on the whole, the statistics indicate a different story. Therefore, his claim lacks the evidence to construct a cogent position and his argument disintegrates as each word issues from his mouth.
Brooks' critics, though "like" the police officer, are not identical with him. Though they judge Brooks a priori, their frustration with Brooks and his complaint that "The greatest danger of extreme wokeness is that it makes it harder to practice the necessary skill of public life, the ability to see contradictory truths at the same time" is understandable. And they no doubt think Brooks is at the least rather obtuse when he argues 'that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress not in moments of perceived threat."
Perhaps his "optimism" isn't the right word or approach. After all, the "great social reform" that ended slavery, the Civil War, killed some 600,000 Americans. And the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's sacrificed many lives, including the movement's most loved and important figure--Martin Luther King.
Near the end of Brooks' essay, he considers the "debate surrounding the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates," for whom, according to Brooks, "The entire American story was and continues to be based on 'plunder,' the violent crushing of minority bodies. Even today, 'gentrification' is but a more pleasing name for white supremacy." Brooks finds fault for Coates seeing the "problem of racism in these "maximalist terms." Does this view make Brooks un-woke?
Can one be "woke" and moderate at the same time? That is the question Brooks would like to answer with a unequivocal "yes." He believes that "being dispassionate in one's perception of" gun violence or social injustices allows one to fight most successfully against racism or gun violence. I for one am happy that Ta-Nehisi Coates calls attention to the racism that too many argue no longer exists. His voice alerts us to the lingering effects of slavery and to those forces today that, intended and unintended, still abuse people of color. Together, Coates and Brooks provide two prongs that can puncture the propaganda of the Hannitys and Limbaughs, who daily spread lies that warp the minds of far too many, and set a political framework that can counter Trump and his followers who push "alternative facts," argue truth is relevant, and foment division and divisiveness among Americans with Putinesque cunning.
He recounted the time some young black mechanics had replaced the tires on his car. He told me that he had chatted cordially with those men and treated them exactly the same way he would had they been white. When they had finished, he rewarded them for their excellent service with a generous tip which they deserved for their hard work. In his mind, his observations of those on welfare in New York together with this anecdote proved conclusively that if able bodied individuals--black or white for that matter--wanted to work, then they would. The jobs were "out there"; they just had to be willingly to get them.
The sweeping generalization he arrived at regarding welfare and work reflects a method by which too many of us form opinions about the motives and behavior of other people. We observe the people around us, note to ourselves what they say and do, then become convinced we know why they act and think as they do. Once that "understanding" settles in our minds, it thickens and solidifies; it hardens into doctrine.
This hardening of doctrine features in David Brooks' latest column, "The Problem With Wokeness." Brooks refers to a comment he made on Meet The Press, in which he said that there is "much less gun violence" in schools than there was in the 1990's. His remark generated a good deal of "hatred on social media," because, as Brooks claims, he failed to maximize the "size of the problem," and therefore "was draining moral urgency and providing comfort to the status quo."
Brooks identifies the criticism of his 'failure' to adequately understand the "size" of the gun violence "problem" as a "mental habit" analogous to the thought process of "wokeness." The term "woke" "means being aware of racial, gender and economic injustice," or as Brooks puts it, "To be woke is to understand the full injustice" of a practice, condition, environment or situation in American society.
In other words, in citing data that show fewer school shooting are occurring today, Brooks believes he is being judged not by the accuracy of his facts, but by the "correctness" of his "perception" of gun violence in schools. Brooks sums up type of thinking (a "frame of mind" he calls it) as follows: "wokeness jams together the perceiving and the proposing. In fact, wokeness puts more emphasis on how you perceive a situation--how woke you are to what is wrong--than what exactly you plan to do about it."
Like the police officer I mentioned above, who knew the motives of every able-bodied black on welfare, Brooks' critics "know" too his motives and summarily denounced him for them. By condemning his motives, these critics can preemptively enclose Brooks and his ideas in a box which has written on it, "Do not open; point of view invalid." Rather than engage his argument, it becomes easier to shut him down and thereby ignore what he has to say. His voice on the subject becomes as empty as the wind and those who are "woke" have silenced someone who, by virtue of his perception of an issue, cannot be "woke."
It may seem unfair to lump those who are arguing for social justice with the police officer whose perception of how and why young men women receive welfare, food stamps or any public assistance is deduced from images tainted by assumptions coloring his thoughts before they have entered his consciousness. It is true that some of the men and women he has seen prefer to receive benefits and avoid work. But on the whole, the statistics indicate a different story. Therefore, his claim lacks the evidence to construct a cogent position and his argument disintegrates as each word issues from his mouth.
Brooks' critics, though "like" the police officer, are not identical with him. Though they judge Brooks a priori, their frustration with Brooks and his complaint that "The greatest danger of extreme wokeness is that it makes it harder to practice the necessary skill of public life, the ability to see contradictory truths at the same time" is understandable. And they no doubt think Brooks is at the least rather obtuse when he argues 'that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress not in moments of perceived threat."
Perhaps his "optimism" isn't the right word or approach. After all, the "great social reform" that ended slavery, the Civil War, killed some 600,000 Americans. And the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's sacrificed many lives, including the movement's most loved and important figure--Martin Luther King.
Near the end of Brooks' essay, he considers the "debate surrounding the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates," for whom, according to Brooks, "The entire American story was and continues to be based on 'plunder,' the violent crushing of minority bodies. Even today, 'gentrification' is but a more pleasing name for white supremacy." Brooks finds fault for Coates seeing the "problem of racism in these "maximalist terms." Does this view make Brooks un-woke?
Can one be "woke" and moderate at the same time? That is the question Brooks would like to answer with a unequivocal "yes." He believes that "being dispassionate in one's perception of" gun violence or social injustices allows one to fight most successfully against racism or gun violence. I for one am happy that Ta-Nehisi Coates calls attention to the racism that too many argue no longer exists. His voice alerts us to the lingering effects of slavery and to those forces today that, intended and unintended, still abuse people of color. Together, Coates and Brooks provide two prongs that can puncture the propaganda of the Hannitys and Limbaughs, who daily spread lies that warp the minds of far too many, and set a political framework that can counter Trump and his followers who push "alternative facts," argue truth is relevant, and foment division and divisiveness among Americans with Putinesque cunning.
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Possum or Weasel?
Scott The "Possum" Pruitt is a very religious man. In fact, he is so religious that religion informs his politics: "A Christian world view means that God has answers to our problems. And part of our responsibility is to convey to those in society that the answers that he has, as represented in Scripture, are important and should be followed, because they lead to freedom and liberty."
What does Pruitt mean by "freedom and liberty?" Does he mean "freedom" from congressional oversight into his ethics violations and corruption? Does he mean "liberty" to spent taxpayers' money on his travel, pens, phone-booth? It seems that this "freedom" may be slipping away. According to The New York Times, Pruitt instructed an aid to inquire about acquiring his wife a Chic-A-Fil franchise. Pruitt's behavior violates the ethics rule against having subordinates perform personal duties and might constitute the crime of using one's office to leverage a personal benefit. Congress is already conducting 12 investigations into Pruitt. We must hope the latest revelation finally sends this miscreant back to Oklahoma; sympathies to those in the Sooner state.
What does Pruitt mean by "freedom and liberty?" Does he mean "freedom" from congressional oversight into his ethics violations and corruption? Does he mean "liberty" to spent taxpayers' money on his travel, pens, phone-booth? It seems that this "freedom" may be slipping away. According to The New York Times, Pruitt instructed an aid to inquire about acquiring his wife a Chic-A-Fil franchise. Pruitt's behavior violates the ethics rule against having subordinates perform personal duties and might constitute the crime of using one's office to leverage a personal benefit. Congress is already conducting 12 investigations into Pruitt. We must hope the latest revelation finally sends this miscreant back to Oklahoma; sympathies to those in the Sooner state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)