Some will remember 2016 as the year a reality show host was elected to the nation’s highest office. I will remember 2016 as the year the U.S. media trivialized dissent and trivialized the concerns of Donald Trump’s most vocal critics. Some media personalities did so directly, others passively, while many more were bystanders. “Democrats are alarmists”, “Our Democracy is safe, we have structures in place to protect it.”, “Dems have Clinton, on one hand, and the pretense of an impending doomsday, on the other”, “The Democrats are hysterical”.
I can hear the Trump-warnings as clear as a ringing bell. Democrats from the grassroots to the Presidential level warned about the danger Donald Trump posed, and not just to the American Presidency, but to the nation, as a whole. He was on a two-year media tour with zero plans to govern the nation, while the media found Hillary Clinton “too-prepared” and “too-rehearsed”. It was clear that Trump didn’t know the difference between the U.S. Constitution and a poorly written “Celebrity Apprentice” script. Hillary Clinton was “too wonky”, by comparison. Despite the numerous run-ins with the law at federal, state, and local levels, and a smug disdain for authority – other than those who sided with him politically, Trump’s legal issues were largely ignored. Clinton was always “allegedly-guilty” in the eyes of the media and some voters. Proof of guilt was never necessary.
Trump’s harshest critics were women, and African-Americans. While 42% of women supported him, only 8& of African-Americans did. Why? As a woman of color, I can tell you why I believe most of us never bought into the argument that our structures (courts, judges, law enforcement, and ultimately the voters) would hold Trump accountable.
As people of color, here is what we know from firsthand contact and generations of survival weariness: the structures that so many in the, primarily, white (male) media thought would constrain a uniquely unqualified white (male) candidate are neither tangible nor rigidly applied. They are structures that work when the people who apply them do their jobs – without bias. The experiences of African-Americans in the U.S. have led us to understand how fragile those systems are. We knew what it meant that Trump stirred deep racial animus among his supporters. We knew what it meant to hear crowds chanting about their passion to possess the American dream, for themselves, and to dispossess others of that dream. There was no way those structures were going to hold for long (see the Muslim travel ban). We also knew that the man who would be granted the power to push the boundaries of those structures would do so gladly, and most likely succeed.
African-Americans have seen this particular shit-show up close and personal, many times before. We know it does not end well not matter what anyone tells you. We watched post-civil war Reconstruction become secondary slavery and lynching. Our 40 acres and a mule became sharecropping and convict leasing. The right to vote became the poll tax and grandfather clauses. Trayvon Martin and Tamir Rice replaced Emmett Till. Recy Taylor, “4 Little Black Girls (Addie Mae Collins [age 14], Carol Denise McNair [age 11], Carole Robertson [age 14], and Cynthia Wesley [age 14] become Sandra Bland, Gynnya McMillen, Cyntoia Brown, and countless others. Redlining, the unholy banking and real estate alliance that deprived generations of African- and Latino-American families of a home surrounded by a white-picket fence in tree-lined suburbs, became affordable (segregated) housing- turned untended housing projects and untended rental property. Outlawed redlining became modern-day redlining. How many examples do you need? I have more.
Almost every major stumbling block dropped into the lives of people of color took place IN SPITE OF the structures of society that were designed to ensure equality and fairness. In many cases, those structures aided and abetted the destruction of minority lives, placing blocks at the local, state, and federal levels. Individuals, like Martin Luther King, Jr, and the contemporary Black Lives Matter heroes, end up on watchlists and are described as potential threats to our freedoms and/or safety. They are placed alongside the names of spies who sell out the nation’s interests to hostile, and friendly, foreign governments. Those structures, at times, treat the people who fight for a fairer America with the same disdain as those who would do her harm – especially when the fight centers on racial equality.
The very fact that media sources and politicians play the game, “What if Barack Obama did that?” shows the tacit acknowledgement that #44, by virtue of his race and the bigotry of those who were determined to see him fail, could never have gotten away with behavior for which Trump has been given a pass. Trump’s behaviors range from sheer incompetence to potentially traitorous. The same “structures” that demanded perfection of Obama, and still rejected his best efforts, are the very structures that demand almost nothing of value from Trump. Why? Those structures are ideas, accepted and put into practice by people, who have to hold to those values despite personal beliefs and biases.
So you see the problem here? If the answer is yes, you know what African-Americans knew when we gave him only 8 percent of our vote (and by the way “8%”, you are not invited to my cookout – and you know what that means).
The bottom line is that, yes, we will survive Donald J. Trump, whether he is in prison by the end of his term, or simply voted out of office. The problem is that with any major tragedy, we run the risk of surviving but without being able to recover the delicately progressing nation we were before Trump came along. We run the risk that the privilege that afforded this grand opportunity to the most uniquely unqualified man, in history, will lead us all to pay for it, for the rest of our lives and part of the lives of our children and grandchildren.
The next time the primarily (white, male) media tells you to “calm down” or that you are being “hysterical”, vote like your lives and futures depend on it. They just might.
A – they are indicative of a lack of moral character that proves to the evangelical movement that he should not be permitted to serve in the nation’s highest office, nor as a role model for youth?
Doubtful. They are no longer worried about “what to tell the children” as they claimed to be with Bill Clinton. They are no longer worried that their children will ask them uncomfortable question about sex and sexuality as it relates to marriage. Good luck in those discussions about Porn, Playboy, and the office of the Presidency, evangelicals, To be fair, I have a sneaking suspicion that you are not as “in the dark” on these discussions as some think.
B – the payments may be tied to campaign law violations that could result in criminal charges against #Trump and members of his team?
Doubtful. Even if those reports are to be believed, Team Trump has never been held accountable by the cowardly #GOP majority – which would most assuredly fight any charges leveled against the man who signs their bills, no matter how awful those bills are for American families and workers. #GOPTaxScam.
C – the payments show his disregard for women and that he has no problem trying to silence women no matter his own complicity?
Doubtful. I find it odd that a man who brags about his sexual prowess works to silence the women reportedly involved.
His base isn’t concerned about how he treats the women with whom he had affairs, nor the woman on whom he cheated. If there are no tears for Melania, from the hypocritical right wing, fhe women Trump is alleged to have strong-armed into silence don’t stand a chance.
D – the payments show us just how little integrity and honesty he has?
Here is where I place my money. Donald Trump stood before the American public, looked voters in the eye, and lied about knowing nearly every woman who made a claim against him. He positioned himself as a happily married man, of wealth, who is being extorted by liars and gold digging “tramps”. He stood before the American public and defamed women whose only real “crime” was telling the truth about former relationships with a man whose loyalty to others is in short supply.
Voters have often assumed that a person who couldn’t be loyal to the people who loved them most, couldn’t be trusted to care about the rest of us. If you lie to a spouse, you will lie to anyone, the theory goes. What do you make a of a person who is disloyal, who lies about it, who allows the public to believe that everyone who steps up to admit their role in an affair is lying?
Hopefully? That individual will be remembered as a stain on history and a one-termer.
How troubling is this pattern of the use, discarding, denying and defaming of women? None of us knows, just yet, but we will begin to find out on #StormySunday, as Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) tells part of her story on Anderson Cooper this Sunday on CBS’ 60 minutes.
Can we just stop ignoring the fact that human trafficking is a HUGE issue as part of the Channel 4 News expose on Cambridge Analytica? Is it not equally as bad as the misuse of data belonging to 50 million people in this country? How ironic that people who manage data seemingly didn’t investigate the client with whom they met to discuss ways of discrediting political rivals. That new client was a Channel 4 undercover reporter. Cambridge Analytica CEO, Alexander Nix, is recorded offering the new client the “service” of sending Ukrainian sex workers to rivals’ rooms to discredit the rival. SEX WORKERS! In most parts of the world, that sort of offer is referred to as engaging in sex trafficking – and yet the offer is barely mentioned.
How are the sex workers be hired? What is the history of the exploitation of these women – are they in the work by choice or by force? Who will be paid for their labor? Do they receive direct payment or will a manager/pimp/human trafficker receive that payment on their behalf? The introduction of the world “Kompromat” to the American English has, I’m afraid, lessened the impact of the reality of what the word means and its potential for harm to the worker on the more dehumanizing end of the bargain. It is doubtful that we are talking about women (and men) who decided to enter the sex trade of their own accord. Self-selecting the field still holds risks and the potential for dehumanization, but individuals at least own their labor and have the right, and the ability, to decline work.
Have we accepted the practice of the exploitation of women for power as standard and, therefore, acceptable or predictable? We know it is historical, but isn’t it time for that history to end? Are we to conclude that individuals who hire sex workers to compromise others are simply business people, or political figures, who are using a means to reach an end? What happens to those sex workers when the job is finished? Are they compromised in a way that puts their lives at risk? Even when the target is exposed, he is rarely placed in a life-threatening situation, does the risk increase for the sex worker?
IF concern for the women who are trafficked as part of these seedy plots is, sadly, not enough, let’s really make it “sexy”.
— Did Team Trump receive the same offer as other potential new clients? When, and who would have been the identified targets of such offers?
— If the link between CA and #Trump extends as far back as is now alleged, was #Trump preparing the public for a CA hit on #TedCruz after Trump-friendly rags claimed that Cruz had a history of hiring sex workers?
— Ted Cruz was also a client of CA, was the same Kompromat offer made to him regarding primary rivals? How could he not know that CA operated this way?
— How could Kushner, Trump, Trump Jr., Conway, Bannon, Manafort, and the rest of the rogue’s gallery of individuals tightly connected to CA not know that this was part of the “services” the organization provided?
— What will be the reaction of an Evangelical movement that has made peace with #Trump’s infidelities and ill treatment of women? They have already made peace with his relationship with porn star, Stephanie Clifford (#StormyDaniels). Will they make peace with his relationship with a company that brags about trafficking women as a matter of routine? A man with a “difficult” history with women hires a company with a “difficult” history with women. How much more of their integrity are Evangelicals willing to sacrifice to defend this?
And now for the less “sexy” part: Why are we not more concerned that trafficking and politics seem to go hand-in-hand? Somewhere out there, at any given moment, human traffickers are profiting in ways we never expected, but that directly and indirectly touch our lives. They are profiting by making us queasy and distrustful of any politician caught up in one of these plots. They may even be profiting by putting elected officials in high offices, blackmailing them into making decisions favorable to traffickers, their bosses, their colleagues – all at our expense, in order to cover their secrets.
I am hoping that the U.S. Congress (read as: The Democrats), or some other international governing body, will research Nix’s offer. If they find that there is even one scintilla of evidence pointing to this as a routine past practice, CA should be, in my opinion, charged with human trafficking in an international criminal court.
I was raised in a family whose origins began in the southern United States, like many other African-American families. Like so many others, my family survived the pre-civil rights south. Some part of that survival took careful planning. Some of it was pure luck. I share that to help you understand why this week has been an emotional black hole for me, from the beginning of the racist attacks in Charlottesville to the time it has taken me to write these words. Each day the exhaustion is compounded by the battle over whether the appropriate sentiments of disgust and despair have been uttered by Donald Trump. It is an important question, but is it the only question we should focus on during this critical time?
While we focus on #Trump’s weak assessment of the attacks in Charlottesville, and an astounding double reversal of blame, which effectively supports white nationalists, there are other words I hear that speak louder to me than Trump’s. I still hold my uncles’ stories in my head, told with laughter, lived in pain. I remember the story of the uncle who crossed a pasture, running to avoid an angry bull, taking the dangerous run to get home before dark. He feared the sundown laws more than he feared the bull. I was too young to realize the absurdity of laughing that risking his life in that moment saved him from a worse fate. I remember the discussions about the stores my light-complexion mother could safely enter, while her darker-complexion brothers had to wait outside. I think about the legacy of Emmett Till and thank God that my uncles weren’t falsely accused of speaking to white women while they waited. As sad as their stories of terror and discrimination were, I realize that their stories could have been worse, told by my mother – remembering brothers no longer alive to share their own testimonies.
Shortly after the Charlottesville attacks began, the hashtag #ThisIsNotUS began trending. The hashtag is interesting in its effect as much as its viral status. The tag created a sense of open expression for those who believe that we are a better nation than the events on display in Charlottesville – when white pseudo-supremacists attacked a diverse group of Americans. The hashtag opened expression for persons of color whose lived experiences remind us that #ThisIsTheUsYouDidntKnowStillExisted, sadly. To a lesser extent than in the past? Certainly, but the virulent strains of racism which negatively affect the lives of people of color have only been modified in terms of degree of existence, barely modified in terms of degree of impact (more on that, another time). The hashtag has also opened expression for alt-right pseudo-supremacists to try to defend themselves against their heinous acts, and for conservatives trying to defend their party by distancing themselves from the pseudo-supremacists.`
Not that they would care, but I have my own list of #GOP heroes I have placed on #TheResistance honor roll. They are GOPers who routinely stand up to Trump without fear, and without hesitation. Some are individuals who are granted public forums to discuss their concerns, others are social media heroes. I am disheartened by the fact that not one of them seems to understand that the violence in Charlottesville is a problem because it is directly and indirectly indicative of what the #GOP has become over time, and not in the moments after Donald J. Trump took office. The #GOP’s decades long rhetoric about the poor and about minority groups was the powder keg. #Trump and his alt-right goons have only served as the proverbial lit match.
For decades the republican party traded progress for power. Wrapped in what the #GOP has claimed as “party policy” is a continuous stream of coded attacks against citizens of color devised to achieve the party’s end goals. Whether the codes were intentional or unintentional is irrelevant, given the outcome. Those attacks have created a sense of aggrievement in White Americans who were led to believe that “liberal policies” went too far in helping the poor and persons of color – often conflated as one in the same. The “unwarranted” support for the poor, and for minorities, robbed White voters and their communities of opportunity, the Republican party line implied, when not directly stated.
White-voter-aggrievement appears to have more to do with Republican rhetoric than liberal policy or liberal actions focused on minority communities:
Angry southern Democrats who felt betrayed by the party’s movement toward civil rights were taken in by the Republican party in the 1950s and on, most especially after the 1964 civil rights act. The #GOP has been playing to the racial resentment Southern Whites have felt since the act was passed, including failing to condemn Atwater’s southern strategy. The “Party of Lincoln” welcomed the fleeing Dixiecrats, trading the support of loyal African-American voters. What values and beliefs did the Republican party believe the Dixiecrats would bring to the fold? Which voters did they think the anti-integration politicians would bring with them?
Reagan and Dole are credited for openly standing up to the racist elements of their party and boldly stating that there is no room in the Republican party for bigots, for people who espouse values that are antithetical to American values. Dole, in particular, pointed to the exits during his convention speech and unequivocally asked racists to make use of them. They deserve credit for standing up. The bigger question is why the statements had to be made in the first place. What is it about the Republican party that causes the periodic need for tamping down openly divisive and hateful rhetoric from members of the party? What is it about Republican policy and ideology that continues to draw those individuals to it?
Remember that Reagan’s push back against racists is also countered against his “welfare queen” analogy. Who was she? ” She used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans’ benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare. Her tax-free cash income alone has been running $150,000 a year.”, according to Reagan, as he explained the need for welfare reform. She was racialized, of course. To the public, she was the African-American woman living multiple generations on welfare. She was unwilling (more than unable) to care for herself and the numerous children she continued creating – children raised without fathers in the household She was a burden on the hardworking tax paying citizens of this nation. On one hand, Reagan told the party to reject racism and open displays of hostility toward minorities. On the other hand?
Similar examples are available in every prior and successive Republican administration. Republican politicians continue to serve as grand marshals of the aggrievement parade by telling some new version of the welfare queen story, without adding the following:
Most people who are impoverished are working – they are not collecting payments, sitting on their asses, happy to live their lives on welfare. They periodically need support to help their families survive tough economic times until they can land on their feet, again. Staying out of poverty is hard, but individuals who are impoverished keep fighting.
Welfare does not make one “rich” by any comparative American standard. There is no incentive to stay impoverished.
Persons of color are disproportionately poor, but are not the only poor who receive welfare benefits. Many of the aggrieved have most likely received support, or live in places with relatively few minority status individuals, and still have high levels of need and support.
People living in those “liberal places” that support “liberal policies”, such as those living on the east and west coasts, are also strong contributors in terms of paid tax dollars. They often pay more in taxes than they receive by way of federal services and support. Those who attack liberal policies and programs often live in places that receive more in federal support than they pay in taxes.
Can you be against the notion of welfare without being racist? Sure. I have yet to hear anti-welfare rhetoric that is not also racist, stereotypic, and just plain hateful.
How else have Republicans traditionally contributed to rhetoric meant to amass votes, despite the likely outcome of heightening division?
Trending job loss in fields such as coal mining were tied to liberal policies favoring “the other”, as well as extreme liberal environmentalism. Instead of acknowledging the role of automation meant to increase productivity and profit, liberals – who were heavily focused on minority communities, were to blame. Instead of acknowledging the reduced need for coal because of more efficient resources such as natural gas, liberals were to blame.
Books such as “Hillbilly Elegy” were embraced by the media as helping all of America understand the plight of White American Trump voters, whose woes were economic (by implication) and not racial. I believe that the author J.D. Vance is honest in his assessment. I believe that commentators such as Krystal Ball and politicians such as Bernie Sanders, believe this. The wholesale dismissal of the role of race, however, is something I find deeply troubling. Individuals in those regions of the country lost coal producing, and other manufacturing jobs, for the reasons identified above, among others, and because they had them in the first place – something no one points out when the attacks on liberals, liberal policies and “the other” begins.
Were more minorities hired in those positions they, too, would experience high degrees of unemployment in those same regions of the country. Republican politicians routinely imply that White voters were intentionally left behind by liberals who only cared about identity politics. Political pundits and some progressive politicians have claimed the same. It is odd that these same voters are represented by red state politicians who failed to see the tide turning, and failed to help create other employment opportunities. Instead, Republican pols have used identity politics, as well, in coded, implicit, and often racist ways.
Minority status individuals are often disproportionately represented in under- and unemployed communities and they were not, largely, charmed by #Trump’s rhetoric. They were not largely chanting “Build that Wall”, or engaging in racist/sexist chants during political rallies. Trump’s appeal is not primarily economic, in my opinion, given the average income of Trump supporters and the economic diversity in his alt-right crowds. It is a point that I don’t believe was lost on the #GOP and the #RNC in the race to trade progress for power.
This group is aggrieved and feeling as if they are under attack because they have been told by the republican officials who represent them that they SHOULD feel aggrieved and that they ARE under attack, by liberals, liberal policies, by minority communities who are coming to take what is theirs – no other explanation needed as the truth is not politically expedient.
Other moves in the republican trade of progress for power? Most are self-explanatory:
Republican officials who promoted racist, stereotypic, policy suggestions that would have done little to reduce the effects of poverty on minority households. Who could forget Newt Gingrich’s proposal that janitors in schools be fired and that poor teens take their places in cleaning schools?
“This is something that no liberal wants to deal with,” Gingrich said. “Core policies of protecting unionization and bureaucratization against children in the poorest neighborhoods, crippling them by putting them in schools that fail has done more to create income inequality in the United States than any other single policy. ..
Note that he referenced “neighborhoods” and not “rural communities”. I guess internships with local businesses and jobs that would allow teens to save for college would have been a bit much for the kids in those “neighborhoods”. Kill the wage-protecting unions and place teens in those positions. (Not)Brilliant?
Republicans failed to stand up to racist attacks against President Barack Obama. They didn’t stand up to the noose-hangers, the birthers, those who led the birthers, the racist joke tellers, and a host of others who were either voters or elected Republican officials who demeaned President Obama for eight years, using an obviously racist lie. The aggrieved lived eight years believing that an interloper had taken control of the federal government and created policies and programs that disadvantaged them… such as Obamacare. Their elected pols neglected to tell them that Obamacare also benefits rural (largely White) communities, the same communities that are now finding it difficult to continue without Obamacare.
Romney sought support from the chief birther, Donald Trump, semi-legitimizing Trump, despite his obvious racist birther movement. The party should have cut ties with Romney when that happened.
Birtherism is not the only racist language Republicans are comfortable using. Who can forget the “Plantation talk” which permeates the party, even recently in the Osoff-Handel race? The notion of being on a voter plantation apparently does not extend to White voters who reliably vote republican each year – even in the reddest red states where education attainment is low, on average, incomes are low, health care outcomes are dismal, and teen pregnancy rates are high. If there is a plantation that should be avoided… Well…
Trump entering the race referring to Mexican immigrants as rapists, murders, and drug dealers, despite the fact that the data tells us just the opposite – that crime rates are below the national average in immigrant communities. Instead of cutting him off at the knees, Republican politicians traded progress for power, indulging him, complimenting him, hoping to curry favor with his largely uncritical voting base… until it was too late and they realized that he would become their nominee. Never let it be said that the Republican party learns from its mistakes. They doubled down their support during the general election, despite Trump courting the “frog-loving alt-right” and his increasingly erratic behavior.
Paul Ryan recently promoted “building that wall”, while on horseback at the border. The man who once said that Trump’s language was indeed racist, joined him in advocating building a wall against people who have done little to harm us. The Wall is Trump’s signature promise based on a false racist claim. Well done, Speaker Ryan. Another epic failure.
I am disheartened when I hear Republicans champion their party and its heroes as anti-racist, and fault Trump for everything that is happening now. Why? For me, it is the surest sign of a party that is unable and/or unwilling to change. It is a party looking for a scapegoat and #Trump is as good as any, for now. For people of color, it is a temporary reprieve, since we are usually the party’s scapegoat. As stated earlier, Trump is the lit match but that match would burn itself out, if not for the powder keg the Republican party provided. This was a partnership, an ugly, hurtful partnership – a long time in the making.
Will Charlottesville bring about a real change in the Republican party? I would like to think so, but for now, I doubt it.
I don’t disagree with Secretary Clinton that Donald J. Trumpreceives credit for opening the door to the white supremacist/ alt-right movement (or the “so-called alt-right”, to quote Andrea Mitchell… so-called? How about self-identified????). I would contend two additonal points. First, the door was partially opened, when Trump got there. That’s how he made his way in. Second, Trump’s additional “crime” is in taking the door off of its hinges and posting the “welcome” sign for supremacists when he was done. The #GOP unlocked that door long ago, making room for Trump, when it first nominated Goldwater , who virulently opposed the civil rights bill. The party has been toying with Goldwater-esque politics at varying depths since then.
In reality, the #GOP has always tolerated racism from its candidates, as long as racism was carefully coded, enough so to allow a plausible deniability of anything untoward taking place. The sentiment had to be “warm” – accompanied by a smile, none of the bile dripping, vein popping, raging racism of the pre-civil rights movement. It had to have finesse, and be described as benevolently patriarchial “concern” for minority groups. It had to be inconsistent enough to create a sense of cognitive conflict by having its actors behave in ways that seemed to run counter to the charge of racism. It was ok to hire individual minorities. It was not ok to ensure equal access of opportunity for ALL minorities.
Below are some of the #GOP’s greatest hits. If they need explanation, you should talk to some of your progressive friends more often:
Richard M. Nixon(whose tendency toward grievance counting and vindictiveness is often viewed as having the most direct connection to Trump’s brand of modern Republicanism)
The Nixon legacy:
“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
You tell me, did it work? It would be easy to believe that Erhlichmann made it all up. How could the Nixon WH view minorities, African-Americans, in particular, as being the enemies of the Republican Party? Many African-Americans were still registered members of the party, right? He won an enviable 32 percent of the African-American vote despite his reported disregard for African-American people. The problem for those who are in denial regarding Nixon’s racist disposition is that there are over 265 hours of audiotape from the Nixon White House, which confirm his prejudices against African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and many others.
If you follow this Miller Center link, and listen to more of the recordings, his comments about minority groups will make your hair stand on end.
Ronald Reagan (who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968)
Those comments are only shocking or confusing to those who supported Reagan. To those who understood the real issues of poverty in minority communities, those comments were sad and unnecessarily divisive. If this helps (current data, but consistent over time):
Why is spending on food higher for low income people? Impoverished and lower income people have household budgets, too, they aren’t buying steak and lobster. They tend to live in communities, which rely on more “mom and pop” stores instead of major chains. Major chains have more buying power to pass lower costs on to consumers. They offer fresher produce and more product choices. There is a huge “grocery gap“ in our communities. Low income individuals spend more money for food, but are able to buy less. “Young Bucks” buying steak and lobster with food stamps while everyone else eats hamburger is more a figment of the racist and classist imagination than it is reality.
Consciously or unconsciously, Reagan’s supporters make a distinction that I refer to as the politicized Reagan vs. the projected Reagan. Politicized Reagan is the person his non supporters see and judge based on the legislation he did (or did not support), and the rationales he gave – including the refusal to support sanctions against S. Africa. It is not always clear whether his choices were politically motivated or reflective of his true beliefs, but at some point it no longer matters. He supported the frighening Goldwater, fought civil rights legislation, was PUBLICLY unclear of whether he thought MLK, JR was a communist sympathizer, engaging in dog whistle politics despite the truth of the lives of minority people. Of Dr. King, Reagan wrote, to Gov. Meldrim Thomson (member of the John Birch society): “On the national holiday you mentioned, I have the reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality. Indeed to them, the perception is reality. We hope some modifications might still take place in Congress.”
The proejcted Reagan is the man I think his supporters, who were typically not impacted by his more unsavory beliefs and policies, have chosen to believe in – despite all evidence to the contrary. I see a revisionist approach to the man, one which allows his supporters to view his values as non-racist or non-harmful. After all, he was merely seeking to help minorities help themselves, wasn’t he? They see him as someone who couldn’t have held racist sentiments because he occasionally said nice things about minorities or displayed some act of contrition for a lousy thing he’d said or done. I think it’s worth noting that Reagan’s most openly positive PERSONAL actions, regarding race, reported in the link above, occurred prior to his political transition. As President, he spoke about overt acts of racism that he found troubling. None of those feelings stopped him from promoting the false notions of welfare queens and young bucks buying steaks with food stamps.
Jesse Helms(who attempted to filibuster the bill which created the MLK, Jr. Holiday)
“White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races.” – Ad created by campaign strategist Helms and friends for the blatantly racist (and successful) U.S. Senate campaign of Willis Smith in 1950. During the same campaign, Helms described UNC as “the University of Negroes and Communists.” Creative Loafing
The Helms Center denies any involvement, officially or unofficially, in the Smith campaign. Then there is this:
Helms gained a political following in the 1960s as a commentator on Raleigh’s WRAL-TV and the Tobacco Radio Network with his denunciations of the civil rights movement, liberalism and communism. As a senator, he explained that he voted against Roberta Achtenberg, President Clinton’s nominee for a Housing and Urban Development position, “because she’s a damn lesbian.”
“Let it GO! “, you say. Everyone was racist, sexist, and homophobic in the 1950s and 60s, you say. Well, that’s WRONG, I respond. Not everyone was racist, sexist, and homophobic. That’s one of the reasons there was support for the Civil Rights bill and cross cultural participation in the movement. Jesse Helms did not give up his beliefs after the Civil Rights movement (which he opposed).
When Helms encountered protesters during a visit to Mexico in 1986, he remarked: “All Latins are volatile people. Hence, I was not surprised at the volatile reaction.”
Let’s not forget his reported comments to Orin Hatch about Carol Moseley-Braun (D), the first elected African-American female U.S. Senate, serving from 1993 to 1999: “Watch me make her cry. I’m going to make her cry. I’m going to sing ‘Dixie’ until she cries.” The Helms Center, of course, reports the interaction as much more friendly. It adds that she heard his comments to Hatch and told him that his singing would make her cry if he sang “Rock of Ages”. Awwww, see, racism can be warm and friendly too, depending on which side of that interaction you’re standing. No need to realize that CMB managed to defuse an awful situation with humor…. just so those associated with the Helms Center know, slaves did not sing in the fields out of joy.
Strom Thurmond(who left the Democratic Party because of its support for 1964 Civil Rights Act)
His most famous quote – the unsanitized version?
“I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there’s not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theatres into our swimming pools into our homes and into our churches.” 1948
The quote is reported with either “Nigger” or “Nigra” being used. Which matters more? Neither. What matters more is that by the time he uttered those words, Thurmond was the father of a 23 year old African- American woman named Essie Mae Washington-Williams. He’d kept her hidden from the public. Thurmond fathered her when he was 22 years old and Ms. Washington-Williams’ mother, Carrie Butler, was 16 years old and a maid working in the Thurmond household.
When his daughter was 32 years old, the then-Democrat, Thurmond had successfully filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act by speaking for more than 24 hours. Would it surprise you to know that he supported Barry Goldwater in 1964? No? It shouldn’t. He did. He also worked aggressively for Richard M. Nixon in 1968.
Slate outlines the reasons why Thurmond’s later actions should not be treated as a repudiation of his earlier beliefs. For me, the fact that he died, never acknowledging his daughter is sufficient. She set the historical record straight, on her own, six months after her father’s death.
“For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with the same act.” July 2013, referring to Dreamers.
Calves the size of cantaloupes? 75 pound bags? Ok, Whatever, Steve King.
(While in Cleveland, Ohio, July 2016): “This whole ‘white people’ business, though, does get a little tired, Charlie. I mean, I’d ask you to go back through history and figure out, where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you’re talking about? Where did any other sub-group of people contribute to civilization?”
I’m sure if he’d just asked anyone who studied African-American history, or anyone who knew anything about that city, that they would have told him about Kentucky born Garrett Morgan, who made Cleveland, Ohio his home: Inventor of the first safety hood, one of the first stop lights, and a host of other inventions. King’s race baiting comments are too numerous to name.
Everything you need to know about this guy is summed up in the following statement:
In addition to the GOP’s stand out all stars, above, there are the assorted bunch of racially insensitive characters (elected at all levels of government) whose actions mirror the above, to varying degrees. I do not believe that all of the above are equal in terms of the depth of vulgarity of their approaches to race and racism. I do believe they are tied to an ideology that binds them to the Republican party. As stated earlier, Trump didn’t open the door to the alt-right, he just took the door off the hinges so that they could move about freely. It is up to GOP voters and supporters as to whether the door is closed, or if they leave it open and allow the alt-right to eventually burn the party down. The constant denial of its troubles with race will mean that the door can never be properly secured to keep out the fringe. If the party doesn’t start to look deeply into its soul and then take action, it will never again be the party of Lincoln, in the way that it has hoped to be. Their refusal to take action after the 2012 autopsy tells us that.
Let’s hope that post-Trump, things change for the better.
Anyone who knows me knows that I had FINALLY come to my senses. I stopped watching @MorningJoe and saved myself the frustration of waiting for his uber-partisan switch to be flipped. Election years have been the worst. Scarborough seems to pride himself on being equally critically of “both parties”. If ever I have the time, I will gladly present a counter to that belief. It is not yelling at both parties that is the indication of fairness, it is the level of analysis and focus on the severity of the issues that count. That Scarborough, and most of his colleagues, still suffer from False Equivalency Syndrome (FES) goes without saying, but so many others have said it so well, for so long, why not include that wisdom?
Examples of the destructive effect of false equivalencies:
What should also be said is that FES seems to prevent members of the media from examining their own, personal and professional, hiases that may hinder their ability to identify the real issues that divide voters. Superficial analyses of cultural concerns and attitudes, based on false equivalencies, do more than annoy readers; they potentially turn over power to individuals who should not have it, distort history, and often place vulnerable communities at even greater risk. More on that, later.
Admittedly, I have been watching #MorningJoe at least twice a week over the last several weeks. Why? I was curious about how Scarborough and his colleagues would handle the revelation of #Trump’s character and the public’s increasing rejection of #Trumpism. FINE! I also watched to gloat because it was pretty clear to many viewers, very early on, that the #TrumpTrain would derail for the obvious reasons. I was stunned to tune in and hear Scarborough chastizing the media for zeroing in on #Trump’s dark, weak, and overly dramatic (thoroughly inaccurate) portrayal of America as a nation on the decline. His convention speech suggested a nation beseiged by race wars and hand-to-hand combat in the streets, an economy in stark decline, financial institutions on the verge of collapse, and himself as the great savior. If you are old enough to remember the term “Helter Skelter”, you are old enough to understand why Trump’s convention speech took on an air of madness for some of us.
Scarborough’s reported relationship with Trump has always been uncomfortable, for me as a (then consistent) viewer. It made me uncomfortable enough to cause me to become an ex-viewer . To tune in, again, and see that he seemed to still have hope that a deeply flawed candidate such as Trump might yet connect with the American public was even more disturbing. To whom would Trump’s words connect and what would that mean for the rest of us? That apparent hope gave me the greatest clarity, yet.
The problem with the media, not just Scarborough, is that they do not possess the sort of understanding of diverse groups that would, and should, have made them more skeptical of this candidate from the beginning. A Trump win is not one that bodes well for nonwhite individuals, nor for those who are LGBTQA, nor for those who have disabilities, who are recent immigrants, nor would it be welcome news for women who value the progress society has made toward reaching equality. African-American voters, in particular, have been dismissed as voting on the basis of soaring rhetoric and simple affiliation. Give us more credit than that. We have long memories, and despite our varying levels of economic and educational successes (overlooked by the pro-Trump crowd), there are some experiences that are so common to so many of us, that we know bigotry when we see it. We know danger when it is headed our way, even if it smiles and laughs, and calls us “friend”. We have a shared history that tells us to pay attention to actions, not just words.
Scarborough, along with cohost Mika Brzezinski, touted a personal history with Trump as the reason they saw him as a good man, a man whose success was easily explained. Had they missed Trump’s legal issues regarding housing discrimination? Are they absolutely clueless that this sort of behavior extends far beyond not being able to move to a nicer apartment? The exceptionally talented Bomani Jones wrote the following of Donald Sterling, but he may as well have written it about Donald J. Trump and every other person guilty of housing discrimination:
Discrimination in the housing market has been crippling to the attempts blacks and Latinos have made to empower themselves economically. The worst examples are in the sales market — there’s a wealth of urban economic evidence showing how the inability to buy homes has affected the black-white wealth gap — but such behavior in the rental market is just as damaging. Consider that, frequently, moving to a fancy neighborhood like Beverly Hills provides the best chance a family has at placing its children in decent schools, something we all can agree is pretty important.
People tend to think of the more annoying manifestations of racism, like how hard it can be for non-white people to get cabs in New York. But in the grand scheme, stuff like that is trivial. What Sterling is accused of is as real as penitentiary steel.
We KNOW that when this sort of discrimination occurs, some of our children are missing out on an opportunity to improve their educational outcomes. Their parents will later be admonished for not working hard enough to improve their circumstances by moving them to better schools. We KNOW that some children are left fighting their way through tougher neighborhoods. Their parents will later be accused of not working hard enough to protect them and for accepting community violence. We KNOW that some of us will lack access to jobs that are better paying because of the inability to move into the communities where those jobs exist. They will later be accused of not actively trying to improve their lot, but waiting for a handout from the government. We KNOW that whoyou know often matters as much as what you know and some of us aren’t granted the same opportunities to estalblish and broaden helpful social networks for our children and families. The Sterlings and Trumps of the world will rarely ever be accused of doing harm or damaging society because of their own personal and moral failings. That accusation will be left for their victims.
More importantly, we know what it means when someone who is guilty of the above behavior has to sign a pledge to not do it again. Does most of the media understand it? While the media is establishing a false equivalency between “unlikable” Hillary Clinton and “unlikable” Donald Trump, how many of them will dig deeper into the truth behind that data and what “unlikable” means in terms of outcomes for individuals and communities, in the long term?
Were Scarborough and Brzezinski unaware that the candidate called for the execution of teenagers accused of raping and assaulting Central Park jogger, Trisha Meili?
The NYTimes covers this issue and a smear campaign in which St. Regis Mohawks were targeted by the candidate just over a decade, later. They were targeted with ads which stated that, “The St. Regis Mohawk Indian record of criminal activity is well documented.” I guess it worked so well in the CP5 case, why change the tactic?
We now know that the Central Park Five were innocent. To be fair, it seemed clear to many, even then, that they were innocent. Rather than apologize for his harsh treatment of five exonerated young men, the youngest of whom were 14 years old when accused, Trump continued to defend his belief in their guilt:
This isn’t just about #Trump getting it wrong. This isn’t about major pitfalls in a campaign run by a novice too green to pivot, too inexperienced to be politically correct. This is about a candidate’s longstanding pattern of presenting negative and false images of people of color, a history denied by pro-trump supporters and largely ignored by the media, even after his false comments about undocumented Mexican Immigrants.
Those comments were treated as being indicative of a “new Trump”, one willing to say anything to win an election. Thankfully, FES does not influence the reporting of all issues at all times and there has been some (limited) coverage of racially charged campaign comments that are consistent with his pre-campaign history. Rather than worrying about appearing “fair” in the eyes of Trump supporters, what about being fair to diverse communities and covering our concerns as lived history, not simply concerns of party affiliation? Why not confront Trump and his SPOX more often with serious questions about his behaviors and asking whether they have evidence of a real change, significant enough to erase his sordid past?
It should also be noted that his actions in the Central Park Five case are deeper than “getting it wrong”. It reminds many of us in the African- and Latino-American communities of how infrequently the media challenges indiviuals of privilege on similar actions and comments. Does Mr. Trump know how many people of color have been falsely accused and convicted of crimes, often based on evidence that wouldn’t be sufficiently used to expel a child from school? Is he aware of how perception can impact conviction rates and carry more weight than evidence? Does he care how his actions have contributed to the pain of many families of color who have suffered as they have watched beloved children and family, those they know are innocent, be convicted and sentenced to life in prison, or even receive the death penalty? The Innocence Project provides more data.
Whether or not they are apologists, listening to @JoeNBC and Mika this past week, felt like listening to every privileged apologist for racists & racism I have ever met. They refuse to believe that despite THE RECORD, it is more likely the case that they either wore blinders in Trump’s presence, did not fully understand racism when they saw it, or that they were protected from his behavior because they were not the targets of his beliefs. Any of the above is more likely than the likelihood that racism (or any of the other -isms) the candidate displays is the result of a change in situation.Any of the above is more likely than a recent change in nature (especially in the nature of a man who brags that he hasn’t changed since he was 8 years old). I was fortunate enough to watch when frequent guest, Donny Deutsch, participated. Deutsch was exactly right in asking how well anyone actually knows Trump as he listened to the denials that the man was a racist and that his beahvior was an act. He wisely asked how many people sitting around the table could say the things Trump said if they didn’t believe them. Sadly, Joe Scarborough stopped him from allowing that meaningful dialogue to take place.
I have also felt equally betrayed by the members of the media who praised Trump for staying on message while reading from a teleprompter, as he challenged African-Americans on what we had to lose by voting for him. They did so without considering the weight of his racist message on African-Americans. Rather than praise Trump’s ability to stay on message, where was the outrage that he treated all African-Americans as a monolithic group, all of whom must be impoverished, all of whom are sending children to “failing schools”, all of whom are unemployed, etc
What do we have to lose? Let me count the ways! I doubt that a man whose campaign is a study in transitioning a major political party to a racial Nationalist party has the right to ask that question. Just as many voters were taken in by the legend of a “man of the people” who just happens to be a successful billionaire businessman, far too many members of the media may have been taken in as well. The media is failiing those of us most at risk under a potential President Trump. Most of the media won’t have to experience the same risks, and will have the luxury of continuing to nurture its FES while failing to question #Trumpism and its implications.
Below are just a few examples of the questions the media might, broadly, ask differently without FES:
1. Without @Potus saving the auto industry and passing the economic stimulus over Republican’s objections, what would the likely rate of unemployment and rate of economic growth be at this time?
Follow up: Which Republican plan would have led to a faster economic recovery? WAS there a Republican plan for economic recovery?
2nd Follow up: Are there comparative business practices on the #Trump side that would tell the public how he would have handled an economic crises differently?
2. Rs complain that the economy hasn’t grown fast enough. Do they have examples of faster rates of growth under a Republican President or under Republican congressional control, given an economy as broken as the one Obama inherited?
3. How can a Presidential candidate whose history with communities of color is so antagonistic be expected to serve those communities, now?
4. #Trump has had a direct hand and denying access to opportunity for families of color through his rental policies. Several former Apprentice stars are concerned about his racially tinged comments and behaviors as well as their concerns earned while working with him, including Randal Pinkett, Kwame Jackson, Tara Dowdell, Marshawn Evans Daniels, and James Sun and Kevin Allen, . He currently counts as part of his inner circle individuals with connection to the white supremacists movement, including Steve Bannon.
What concrete evidence can Trump provide that makes apparent his committment to diversity, immigration, sex and gender diversity, disability status, and other groups?
5. Will Trump commit to never hiring a nationalist or a person who is anti-LGBTQA in his administration, if elected? If weeding out bias is good enough for his “Extreme Vetting” process, it should be good enough for his cabinet.
6. What are the assurances he will give to all Muslim-Americans that he will make sure that they are protected under the constitution and are free from harm? How will he ensure their safety after the rhetoric of the campaign season?
7. Trump claims to have never mocked a person with a disability (collective eyeroll, friends). Has he ever given thought to the disability community, laws affecting the daily existence of Americans with disaibilities? What changes would he make to current ADA and other laws that would protect persons with disabilities? What legislation would he work to have introducted to congress?
8. To whom does Trump believe he owes and apology? #POTUS for the birther attacks and demands to see all of the President’s documentation, including college transcripts? The above cultural groups? The Central Park Five? The St. Regis Mohawk? The Khans , all Gold Star families and all individuals currently serving in the military or who have ever served? If they are not all on his list, why not?
I scarcely see how any of the @GOP’s top 3 contenders has a shot at beating Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders this coming fall. What I do believe is that Marco Rubio, whose campaign is all but finished, has most likely saved the Republican party from assured self-inflicted destruction this coming election cycle. He hasn’t done it by demeaning the legacy of former President Jimmy Carter, a man whose personal and professional accomplishments CAN be named, unlike Rubio’s light/nonexistent accomplishments.
Rubio hasn’t saved his party by finally figuring out the cause of global climate change (he’s not a scientist, after all). He has potentially saved his party, and Cruz’s political career, by exposing what appears to be Donald Trump’s biggest weakest. Thin skin. That is a trait that should make anyone ineligible to hold the nation’s highest office.
Say what you will about President Obama, but what you can’t say is that he ever let criticism stop him from focusing on his job while in office. President Obama inherited an economy considered so frightfully in peril that then-candidate John McCain took the unprecedented move of suspending his Presidential campaign to “deal with the crisis”. President Obama is now presiding over an economy that:
Our President has continued to help push the nation forward in all areas of American life, despite dealing with an obstructionist congress that refuses to compromise and then blames him for not working with them. He has continued the push forward despite the scurrilous vicious attacks on his parents, wife, children, and extended family. He has done so despite the vicious and cruel taunts, attacks, and repeated violations into the physical space that he and his family now call home. THAT is the temperament we need in our national leader.
Has Donald J. Trump yet given a speech in which he hasn’t defended both his hand size and the size of his penis since the comment was made on Feb. 27th? Trump’s focus on Rubio’s comment was so intense that he marred the history of presidential debates to respond to it. An open defense of your member during a Presidential debate is not exactly the kind of “first” you want to be known for. Rubio has called the man a con artist and implied that the issues with Trump University are so severe that Trump might even have engaged in criminal activity. What gains traction to the point of distraction with Trump? The hand size comment. During a March 5th speech in West Palm Beach at Trump International, he faulted “someone else” for bringing up the comments about his hands, leading him to address the issue during the debate. (Personal Responsibility?) To be clear, the comment was raised to put Rubio on the defensive for engaging in personal attacks after promising that he wouldn’t. Trump was not asked to respond to it. How much more presidential would Trump have looked had he not addressed the comment at all, but let Rubio twist over a broken promise?
Trump’s focus on Rubio’s comments is so intense that he even involved the golf champions at Trump International in a discussion about his “hands”. He asks, “Do I hit the ball good?”, “Do I hit it long?”, “Is Trump Strong?”. (22:07) Again, I doubt that most voters will see that as a presidential move.
Rubio seems to have thrown Trump off of his game plan (whatever that plan was). At what point will we stop hearing about his member and more about the plans that will make a difference in the lives of the American people? If you are looking for work, or worried about your mortgage, do you care about the size of Tump’s penis? Can you imagine what would happen if Trump was in negotiations with international leaders who threw him off his game by commenting on his hand size? How would he ever survive? Trump’s ego and temperament have been called into question for some time. In a comment that ran for less than 1 minute, Rubio has been able to show the American public yet another side to Trump, and caused Trump to spend approximately a week defending something that does not require a defense. Will this win Trump voters in the general election? I doubt it. Given Cruz’s comeback Saturday, Trump’s tactics may not play well in the GOP primary, either, moving forward.
Since the comments have been repeatedly uttered, blamed on others for raising the point, and uttered, again, we learn that Trump has lost ground with later voting Republicans – while winning the early vote. We have also learned that Kasich has pulled ahead of Trump in Michigan. Will Rubio, win or lose, be heralded as true hero of the GOP this election cycle? If so, he finally has an accomplishment he and his supporters can talk about! Is this the beginning of the end for Trump ?Admittedly, Trump wasn’t supposed to make it this far, so only time will tell.