Category Archives: Politics

Apr 3

Identity politics

Catching up on Hitchens’ publications, I came across an article by him in the Washington Times called The Perils of Identity Politics. It was published in January, so I’m rather behind in responding to it (a trend in my life these days). In the article he writes,

Here again, the problem is that Sen. Obama wants us to transcend something at the same time he implicitly asks us to give that same something as a reason to vote for him. I must say that the lyricism with which he does this has double and triple the charm of Mrs. Clinton’s heavily-scripted trudge through the landscape, but the irony is still the same.

What are we trying to “get over” here? We are trying to get over the hideous legacy of slavery and segregation. But Mr. Obama is not a part of this legacy. His father was a citizen of Kenya, an independent African country, and his mother was a “white” American. He is as distant from the real “plantation” as I am. How — unless one thinks obsessively about color while affecting not to do so — does this make him “black”?

Well, his history does not make him “black,” but the people’s perception of his skin color does. I mean, this seems pretty obvious. It’d be great if people stopped making assumptions about people based on such things, and much of Hitchens’ article argues the reason why race and skin color shouldn’t matter, but that doesn’t change the fact that it does matter for many people. People may not go out in the world with the intention of making assumptions about others based on skin color, but it happens (dare I say it happens all the time?). [My mother is convinced that people see her and hear her speak and assume she is an illegal alien. I doubt this very much, but who knows?]

Of course, all this leads Hitchens to say he will not be voting for Obama or Clinton, and that his not voting for them has nothing to do with race or gender. I believe him when he says this, but it hurts to know he’ll be voting for the Republican nominee (though I’m far from surprised)

O, Hitch! Why? Why must ye torment me in this way?

Jan 25

The Debate Spectacle

I won’t bore you with all the behind-the-scenes details regarding the big event (those will be incorporated into the [anything but boring] essay I’m writing about the event). I will say I was most amused by hearing reactions of people when they saw the various newsmen. It seems television newsmen are real superstars, and when a recognizable one walked by, whispers followed. Here were some of the ones I heard regarding Brian Williams:
He looks older in person.
He looks ancient in person.
He’s much taller in person.
He’s kind of hunching over. (Said as he was walking past us)
These were observations made by a cluster of people (mostly students) sitting near me in the lobby.

When Chris Matthews walked by, the woman next to me said, “Look, there’s Chris Matthews! He’s much taller than he looks on t.v.” The same woman, upon seeing Jim Sackett (a local anchorman) declared, “Oh, Jim Sackett!” She then turned to me and said, “They all look so different [in person] don’t they?”

I sat next to a couple of ushers during the debate, and when Brian Williams was introduced, one woman turned to the other and said, “He’s a handsome man!” During the second part of the debate, David Gregory made his way into our section and the usher watched him intently. After a moment, she looked over at me with a big smile and said, “It’s David Gregory!” I was thinking the same thing, exclamation point and all. I recognized a phenomenal photojournalist from the New York Times; I stood up and screamed at the top of my lungs “Oh My God! It’s Stephen Crowley!” in my best Beatles-at-Shea-Stadium-fanatic-fan voice, but everyone just looked at me like I was nuts. Photojournalists get no love.

My assigned seat was appalling. All of the student/faculty seats were appalling. I mean, we may as well have been seated behind a wall: the various items on stage (technical items, scaffolding-type items, decorative items) completely obscured our view. I was on the end of a row, so I could make out 1 1/2 podiums. The folks to my left could not see anything. One by one (and sometimes in groups) we left to find better seats. At one point an usher came over to the section and announced that if we had moved from our assigned seats, we needed to move back because the seats we moved to were also assigned. We gave her a blank stare; crickets could be heard chirping in the background as she waited for us to confess to our transgression. She eventually gave up, so I ended up having a great seat (there were a lot of empty seats).

My favorite question of the evening was from a Florida resident and it was directed at Guiliani: If your immigration program insists all immigrants learn English, why is your campaign running an ad in Spanish? I thought it was an intriguing question and looked forward to his answer, but he didn’t answer it. He just spoke of the importance of speaking multiple languages.

And could the candidates have been any nicer to each other?

Jan 18

Confederates and Patriots?

I was skimming today’s paper, reading that the White House had acknowledged it taped over backup computer tapes of executive office emails (how convenient), and reading about whether anyone will pay attention to our state’s Democratic primary when, just as I was ready to turn the page, I noticed a Confederate flag in an advertisement for a restaurant. When I looked closer, I saw it wasn’t just one, but three Confederate flags. The banner across the top said “Don’t Miss Robert E. Lee’s Birthday!!” And the text at the center of the ad appealed to “Confederates & Patriots” (“Northern by Birth, Southern by Choice??”…C’mon Down!!”). At this restaurant, someone will be singing Civil War era songs for Lee’s birthday. What does one make of this advertisement? I must have read it from top to bottom ten times in an effort to discern every Confederate reference. Judging from the extensive use of exclamation marks in the ad, I’m sure it is meant to be fun and celebratory (Woohoo! It’s Robert E. Lee’s Birthday!). However, the flag has been on my mind (again) because I recently watched a documentary on the history of the KKK, and the Confederate flag was ubiquitous throughout the film; Klansmen were carrying it or wearing it. So, seeing it in today’s paper as a design element for a local restaurant’s advertisement, I couldn’t help but give the stink eye.

I’m not easily offended, and I’m not exactly *offended* by the ad. I’m sure the restaurant is offering it up with benign intentions (at least I assume this is the case). However, I’m baffled that the flag can be used for two totally different purposes: one to imply racist ideals and one to sell food. I’m interested in understanding why it doesn’t (seem to) carry the same kind of punch that other race-related symbols carry. I guess its meaning has been diluted over the years. For those of you who know me and know of my interest in the symbolism behind the flag, I’m sure I’m starting to sound like a broken record. But, like I said before, I just find it baffling.

Jan 11

Keep your tyrannical, oppressive hugs to yourself, or "We’re All Fascists Now"

I’ve been reading an interview with Jonah Goldberg at Salon in which he argues that fascism is left-wing and not right-wing. The conversation between Goldberg and Alex Koppelman is very interesting and serious, but the following comment struck me as rather funny (I have a tendency to laugh at inappropriate times). Koppelman asks, “Payne also says that a ‘fundamental characteristic’ of fascism was ‘extreme insistence on what is now termed male chauvinism and the tendency to exaggerate the masculine principle in almost every aspect of activity.’ How does that fit in with contemporary liberalism, especially Hillary Clinton, who was at one point in the subtitle of your book?” Goldberg responds with:

“[T]he vision of the Huxleyian “Brave New World” future is one where everyone’s happy. No one’s being oppressed, people are walking around chewing hormonal gum, they’re having everything done for them, they’re being nannied almost into nonexistence. That’s the fascism in Hillary Clinton‘s vision. It’s not the Orwellian stamping on a human face thing, it’s hugs and kisses and taking care of boo-boos. It is the nanny state. That is a much more benign dystopia than “1984,” but for me at least, it’s still a dystopia. An unwanted hug is still as tyrannical or as oppressive — not as oppressive, but an unwanted hug is still oppressive if you can’t escape from it … [O]ne of the biggest distinctions between what I’m calling liberal fascism … and classical fascism, is that classical fascism was masculine and violently oppressive and today’s liberalism is feminine and not oppressive but smothering with kindness.”

Damn those tyrannical, oppressive hugs.

(cross-posted at Incertus)