Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 956
November 11, 2015
Hillary Clinton is on wrong side of everything: Stop telling me I have to vote for her because of the Supreme Court
First and foremost, the latest unscientific poll out of Western Illinois University has Bernie Sanders winning the presidency. Therefore, if polls are gospel, we'll have a Democrat in the White House who plans on fixing the structural issues plaguing Wall Street and the U.S. economy. With Sanders, we'll have an honest attempt at breaking up "Too Big to Fail" banks, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and tackling wealth inequality. Perhaps one reason WIU predicts Sanders winning the presidency is that Vermont's senator has more than 1 million online donors who've funded his campaign. No need for prison lobbyists, like his challenger Hillary Clinton, and no need for a super PAC. Also, one great thing about a Sanders presidency is that Americans will be able to trust a person who never had to evolve toward progressive stances on war, foreign policy, Wall Street and environmental issues like Keystone XL. While critics haven't let me evolve from one article on Rand Paul (written from a purely progressive outlook on ending perpetual war, please read the actual article), supporters of the former secretary of state are very comfortable with her evolution on a number of topics. Naturally, Clinton supporters aren't concerned with perpetual wars. According to one conservative historian in the New York Times, Clinton's foreign policy can easily be deemed "neocon":
"I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach "could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table" if elected president. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added, "it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."When a conservative historian known for neoconservative views says Clinton's foreign policy is "something that might have been called neocon," it's safe to say her foreign policy will be hawkish. In addition, another New York Times article states that neocons are "aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver's seat of American foreign policy." Yes, Clinton will have something close to a neoconservative foreign policy, and if you don't believe me, trust the neocons who approve of her views on war and international relations. Or, you can just read Hillary Clinton's book review of Henry Kissinger's "World Order." In addition to being a Republican pertaining to war and foreign policy, conservative stances have plagued Clinton throughout the years. With Clinton, poor judgment is referred to as a regrettable mistake. Owning a personal server was a "mistake," voting for the Iraq War was a "mistake," she "wasn't raised" to envision gay marriage, and now opposes the TPP based upon "What I know about it, as of today." Generally, poor decision-making is addressed as an honest error, then acknowledged wholeheartedly, while supporters find every way to justify the flip-flop. Accountability is a foreign concept to the Clinton campaign and any reasoned critique is met with"You sound like a Republican!" Even accepting $100,000 from Donald Trump is simply part of Washington politics. Hillary Clinton has evolved on war, gay marriage, Keystone XL, the TPP, in addition to marijuana legislation, and her supporters believe this is a good thing. All human beings evolve, therefore politicians who do the same must be doing so for altruistic reasons. For the rest of America, 57 percent of voters nationwide find Clinton to be "not honest and trustworthy." Luckily, Clinton has made up for this deficit in trustworthiness by stating she'll no longer accept money from prison lobbyists. This is a relief since four of her top five donors since 1999 are investment banks and there are questions about foreign donors to her foundation. Nonetheless, in the eyes of supporters, a Democrat is always better than a Republican, even if Politico labels Clinton to be Wall St. Republicans' dark secret. We dare not vote based upon principle, since only the political power Hillary Clinton is said to possess protects us from Trump, if Sanders doesn't get the nomination. Granted, Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton, but we can't rock the boat for fear of a Trump presidency if Clinton is the nominee. Republicans are the enemy, says the thought process bolstering the Clinton campaign, therefore accepting money from prison lobbyists and Wall Street is part of the game. There's a reason Hillary Clinton waited almost three weeks to address the death of Michael Brown and the Ferguson protests. Sadly, part of this reason could be prison lobbyists. The Huffington Post explains the conundrum faced by the Clinton campaign in an article titled "Hillary Clinton Says She'll End Private Prisons, Stop Accepting Their Money":
Even as Bill Clinton apologizes for making the issue of mass incarceration worse and 2008's 3:00 a.m. ad (an attack ad against Obama labeled by Harvard's Orlando Patterson as containing a "racist sub-message") is relegated to the ash heap of liberal consciousness, some people refuse to acknowledge issues pertaining to race within the Clinton campaign. One must vote for any Democrat, regardless of how they treat a core constituency. Right? Wrong. But think about Supreme Court nominees! Selfish! Infantile! Ruth Bader Ginsburg is fine and the New York Times writes that she has "no interest in retiring." Justice Scalia isn't stepping down from the U.S. Supreme Court soon and will only contemplate retirement when he "can't do the job well." Anthony Kennedy is in "no rush" to leave the Supreme Court. Justice Breyer has no plans to step down but will "eventually" retire one day. The paranoid legions, frightful of voting their conscience and actually upholding our democracy, can rest assured that all four Supreme Court justices mentioned are still capable of lasting four more years. Furthermore, it's doubtful Clinton could win a general election with an ongoing FBI investigation and negative favorability ratings. The Benghazi hearing was a sign of noble defiance to many, regardless of the fact Republicans are already planning impeachment if Clinton wins the election. Nevertheless, the reality is that Sanders is poised to shock the political establishment. I've already explained in June that Bernie Sanders will defeat Clinton and any GOP challenger to win the presidency. However, if Clinton is the nominee, the Democratic Party will be forced to "evolve" toward progressive politics in the following election. I'm only voting for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and I explain why in this YouTube video and recent article in the Huffington Post and Salon. If electing a person who voted for Iraq and accepts money from prison lobbyists is the next evolution of the Democratic Party, then it's best to make a statement now before Marco Rubio is eventually considered a Democrat. If by chance Sanders loses the nomination, I'll write him in, and if Democrats lose, then the Democratic Party will evolve to cater to progressives tired of moderate Republicans posing as Democrats. The Democratic Party will learn to uphold its ideals and evolve toward progressive views on war, foreign policy and other topics integral to the presidency. Most important, Democrats like Hillary Clinton will never again accept money from prison lobbyists or expect to win the presidency after voting for devastating wars like Iraq. If the Democratic Party learns the hard way, it won't be my fault. It will be the fault of pragmatists who've coddled the DNC for fear of Supreme Court nominees, or the allure of political power. I'm only voting for Bernie Sanders, primarily because we still live in a democracy, and I'll vote based upon my conscience. Bernie Sanders is a once in a lifetime political figure, and I won't settle for his antithesis, simply to appease the same people who've allowed the Democratic Party to become what it is today.Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC, according to Vice... Immigrant and civil rights groups have urged Clinton to stop accepting contributions from donors with ties to GEO and CCA. Earlier Thursday, in announcing its co-founder Cesar Vargas was moving to the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the advocacy group Dream Action Coalition singled out Clinton for accepting those contributions. Sanders recently introduced a bill to ban government contracts for private prisons, including immigrant detention centers.
November 10, 2015
Reese Witherspoon is right: We have to keep pushing for pay equality in Hollywood and beyond
At last night’s Glamour Women of the Year Awards, actress Reese Witherspoon didn’t just bask in the glow of receiving an award presented by Goldie Hawn, but took the opportunity to go to bat for women in Hollywood. She recounted meeting with studio executives in 2012 and, after asking them “So, how many movies are in development with a female lead?” receiving a decidedly unsatisfactory answer. “I was met with nothing, blank stares, excessive blinking, uncomfortable shifting. No one wanted to answer the question because the fact was the studios weren’t developing anything starring a woman. The only studio that was was turning a man’s role into a woman’s role,” recounted Witherspoon. So Witherspoon founded a production company, optioned two books with strong female leads that became bestsellers — "Gone Girl" and "Wild" — and adapted them for film. She says now Pacific Standard is thriving, and furthermore, "it’s thriving because female-driven films work. This year alone, 'Trainwreck' with Amy Schumer, Melissa McCarthy's 'Spy,' 'Pitch Perfect 2,' 'Cinderella,' the 'Hunger Games' franchise, those made over $2.2 billion worldwide. Films with women at the center are not a public service project, they are a big-time, bottom-line-enhancing, money-making commodity." And then she pointed out that women are still under-represented and under-paid compared to men, in Hollywood and across industries. This ties into Jennifer Lawrence kicking off a renewed discussion about the Hollywood gender wage gap with her recent essay for Lena Dunham’s newsletter Lenny, which has gotten major support from the likes of Emma Watson, Mark Ruffalo, Jessica Chastain and others in the industry. The issues of women and representation onscreen and how much women make in front of the cameras, behind the cameras and as writers, camera people and in other roles are intimately entwined. Rosario Dawson highlighted this in a recent MTV News interview while promoting "Call of Duty: Black Ops 3," stating, “I’ve worked on a lot of projects where the male lead or even the male and the female lead will get paid millions of dollars and then everyone else gets SAG minimum payment. You’re privileged to work with this director and these actors, but it’s a Catch-22. You need to make money so you need to have work, and to be able to get work you have to get to a place where your name means something and you make these sacrifices — like, ‘OK, I’ll do this for nothing, but hopefully the movie will do well and it will help me out later.’ So even talking about equity, there’s a lot that comes in between it.” Dawson is right that not every actress (or actor) passionate about this issue will have the financial means to threaten to walk away from a project if they feel they’re being underpaid, or be able to go directly to the highest levels of the industry, like Witherspoon did. Not to mention that unless women are talking about how much they make with their coworkers, they may not know that they’re being paid unfairly; Lawrence’s essay was prompted by the Sony email hack that gave her access to the precise details of just how underpaid she was. But even after a successful film, that’s not a guarantee of fair wages for female actresses. Sharon Stone recently revealed to People that “After 'Basic Instinct', no one wanted to pay me. I remember sitting in my kitchen with my manager and just crying and saying I'm not going to work until I get paid." While it may not seem like the Hollywood wage gap has a direct bearing on women outside that industry, it seems to me that much of this discussion boils down to women finding ways to take control of this conversation, both on a cultural level and in their negotiations. For most of us, we aren’t taught to talk about money as a normal part of everyday life; I don’t think I ever asked a coworker what they made in my seven and a half years as a magazine editor. I’m not exactly sure what I would have done with that information if I’d found out whether I was being paid comparably or not, but I would have at least known. Instead, I felt so lucky to even have full-time employment that I didn’t try to negotiate for a raise during my entire tenure there, or for more vacation days. As writer Emma Johnson points out in a DailyWorth article on “How Talking About Money Can Boost Your Earning Power,” simply asking in a direct, non-confrontational way what a coworker or peer is earning will give you a baseline from which you can plan your negotiation. She suggest starting with a simple, “So, how much are you getting for that kind of work these days?” While simply talking won’t necessarily change the power structure in Hollywood, the process of talking followed by action very well might. As Joanna Robinson put it in a Vanity Fair piece about Amy Schumer’s negotiating power, “Transparency seems to be the key to changing some of the entrenched issues in the film industry. With more and more people talking about the lack of women behind the camera, and the wage gap for women in front of the camera, up-and-coming Hollywood players are feeling more emboldened to fight for equality.” The fact that entire pieces are being written about the finances of Schumer’s book and movie deals, separate from the plotlines, is a huge step in the right direction. Schumer is becoming symbolic of women who know their own worth and are willing to fight for their value, rather than simply accept the status quo. Women also need advocates who will bargain on our behalves in the right situations. Kathy Griffin told Variety, in article on the Hollywood wage gap, that she had the “second-lowest salary on the cast” of the sitcom "Suddenly Susan," so "when her agents balked at securing her a pay hike, she marched up to the office of Warner Bros. TV chief Peter Roth to demand a raise.” While Griffin did get a raise, albeit not as much as her male peers made, I found it disturbing that her agents refused to be the ones negotiating the best price she could get. What does that say about how we value women’s work? Patrick Whitesell, co-CEO of William Morris Endeavor, told Fast Company that “we can play a key part” in narrowing the wage gap in Hollywood. The company’s other co-CEO, Ari Emanuel, said the agency recently negotiated on behalf of Charlize Theron to get equal pay to her male co-star Chris Hemsworth for the upcoming sequel to "Snow White and the Huntsman" in a deal that reportedly topped $10 million. Once again, the Sony leak gave her that leverage, but perhaps studios and those across various rungs of the industry could gain goodwill and more female audiences by recognizing our buying power at the box office and negotiating power when deals are being brokered, rather than simply being reactive. The principle of pay equity should apply whether we’re talking about minimum wage or millions. After all, Jennifer Lawrence wrote in her Lenny essay, “I failed as a negotiator because I gave up early. I didn’t want to keep fighting over millions of dollars that, frankly, due to two franchises, I don’t need.” Why? Because she wanted to be liked and not be seen as difficult, a feeling that’s surely familiar to women across industries. “I didn’t want to seem ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled,’” Lawrence wrote. “At the time, that seemed like a fine idea, until I saw the payroll on the Internet and realized every man I was working with definitely didn’t worry about being ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’” Talking about what kinds of roles that are available to women, helping other women break into the industry and giving practical advice to women on honing their negotiating tactics can only serve as a wakeup call to studios that start out with gendered wage inequalities that this practice has to end, the sooner the better.
It’s time to rake Ben Carson over the coals: Enough of the GOP’s victim complex — it’s not persecution to face tough questions
Republicans are generally one of the first groups to screech about political correctness, even while victim-shaming women, minorities, liberals and anyone else they define as weak. Take for example, the current state of the Republican primary: Personal responsibility and moral toughness are character traits the GOP has coopted and branded, but ever since the dreaded CNBC debate last month, the Republicans have fully abandoned their tough-guy swagger and have fully embraced whiny victimhood. At the vanguard of this bizarre reversal is Dr. Ben Carson, whose newly pressed frontrunner status has been predictably accompanied by the blinding Klieg lights of both the online and traditional press. The expectation from the Carson camp is that he and his fellow Republicans should apparently be allowed to introduce with impunity various ridiculous policy proposals while concurrently fabricating ludicrous tall tales about their pasts. Anyone who (rightfully) challenges them on their nonsense is clearly endorsing a Hillary Clinton presidency by crushing the GOP's 2016 hopes and dreams. In other words, Carson and the Republicans are the victims of the alleged "liberal media," and they've got the crocodile tears to prove it. This didn't begin with Carson, of course, but it's more visible now than ever before. Carson's contentious press conference last week was arguably a new high-water mark for the GOP's victimhood complex: Carson vocally objected to the scrutiny he's receiving by claiming, with heretofore unseen exuberance, that President Obama was never vetted so aggressively by the opportunistic liberal media. Curiously, Carson used as evidence of this double standard the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- one of the most heavily scrutinized episodes in recent political memory. Why, Carson wondered aloud and with a straight face, had the news media failed to apply the same standards to Obama in 2008. In reality, the permanent vetting of Obama continues in earnest even today, with a little more than a year remaining in his two-term presidency. Considering how 54 percent of Republicans still believe Obama is a Muslim and a full 61 percent of Trump supporters think Obama was born in Kenya, the ongoing scrutiny has obviously stuck to the wall. But Ben Carson would have us believe Obama got a free pass -- that his allegedly unprecedented use of Teleprompters and appointment of "czars" and even the color of his suits haven't been debated at length in the press. Conversely, we're not supposed to ask serious questions about Carson's "tithing"-based tax plan or the fact that it, as well as the tax plans proposed by the other GOP A-listers, will each generate 10-year budget deficits in the trillions. We're not supposed to wonder why Carson said he received a scholarship from West Point when the prestigious military academy doesn't even offer scholarships. In other words, it's okay to nail Obama about non-issues like Teleprompters and his preference for arugula, but we shouldn't dare dig into whether Carson stabbed someone or whether he endorsed junk-science nutrition supplements. On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" the other day, right-wing talker Hugh Hewitt tried desperately to convince an incredulous Joe Scarborough that the media hasn't scrutinized Hillary Clinton with the same tenacity it's currently applying to Ben Carson. Again, more selective memory and a cynical belief that the GOP base is so ignorant and so consumed with Obama and Clinton derangement that it'll ignore the objective reality that Hillary has been relentlessly watchdogged by the press for more than 25 years. During the MSNBC segment, Scarborough limited his counter-attack against Hewitt to the past year, all through which Hillary's emails and involvement in decisions surrounding the 2012 attacks in Benghazi have been front-page news. What Scarborough didn't mention was how Hillary was thoroughly vetted in 1992, when her husband first ran for president, then throughout President Clinton's two terms, including extensive investigations into Whitewater. She was vetted again during her 2000 senatorial run; again in 2008 when she ran for president; and again after being nominated for Secretary of State. Ben Carson, on the other hand, hasn't run for a damn thing yet. Consequently, the press hasn't had any reason to look into his past or his crackpot policy ideas. Hewitt and the others think this is somehow unfair and that there's not a very well-defined contrast between Carson's new ascendancy into the limelight and Hillary's nearly permanent residency in the limelight. We're supposed to believe that Hillary's 25 years of near constant vetting never happened, while Carson's seven days of vetting is evidence of a liberal media conspiracy. And they wonder why Republicans like Scarborough are questioning what the hell is going on with his party. It's simple, really. The bullies are defining themselves as the victims of bullying. While this mind-numbing transformation is surely playing well with the base, the rest of us only see a pack of shrieking children with full diapers. In a broader sense, the ruckus over Starbucks cups is yet another bellwether, illustrating the GOP as the party of victimization. They somehow believe that by issuing red cups without an explicitly religious message printed on the side, Starbucks is not only engaging in the insanely nonexistent "War on Christmas" myth, but the coffee retailer is directly accosting Christian Republicans. Yes, the most populace religious demographic (70 percent of Americans identify as Christian), along with the most financially lucrative holiday of the year, are somehow threatened by a red cup. Frankly, if your faith is threatened by the existence of red cups at a chain of coffee stores, then it's probably time to reevaluate the strength of your faith. Perhaps in the process, the GOP faithful should take a look at Fox News Channel's and Donald Trump's use of the secular "Happy Holidays" greeting as well -- since, you know, we're talking about equal treatment of both sides. Let's be clear: the GOP's victimhood act is one of the most pathetically ironic shows of political Kabuki in recent memory. It's transparently silly, and emphasizes the long-standing observation that the Republican Party is being dragged away from the grown-up table by the increasingly unhinged base. Tuesday night's debate will likely generate more childish pee-pants dancing by these self-identified tough guys who think they have the stones to operate successfully on a precipitously hostile world stage. If John Harwood, Megyn Kelly and red coffee cups are believed to be actual threats to the integrity and fortitude of the GOP presidential field, they've already lost the election. As Scarboroough said to Hewitt, he likes to win, but the infantile victim complex on display by previously unvetted goons like Trump and Carson will only serve to elect Hillary Clinton, who with every passing tantrum by her would-be GOP challengers looks more and more presidential and entirely qualified to take on ISIS, Putin, China and every other bellicose villain in the rogues gallery, while Ben Carson can't seem to deal with Howard Kurtz or Politico without disintegrating into a sobbing mess.Republicans are generally one of the first groups to screech about political correctness, even while victim-shaming women, minorities, liberals and anyone else they define as weak. Take for example, the current state of the Republican primary: Personal responsibility and moral toughness are character traits the GOP has coopted and branded, but ever since the dreaded CNBC debate last month, the Republicans have fully abandoned their tough-guy swagger and have fully embraced whiny victimhood. At the vanguard of this bizarre reversal is Dr. Ben Carson, whose newly pressed frontrunner status has been predictably accompanied by the blinding Klieg lights of both the online and traditional press. The expectation from the Carson camp is that he and his fellow Republicans should apparently be allowed to introduce with impunity various ridiculous policy proposals while concurrently fabricating ludicrous tall tales about their pasts. Anyone who (rightfully) challenges them on their nonsense is clearly endorsing a Hillary Clinton presidency by crushing the GOP's 2016 hopes and dreams. In other words, Carson and the Republicans are the victims of the alleged "liberal media," and they've got the crocodile tears to prove it. This didn't begin with Carson, of course, but it's more visible now than ever before. Carson's contentious press conference last week was arguably a new high-water mark for the GOP's victimhood complex: Carson vocally objected to the scrutiny he's receiving by claiming, with heretofore unseen exuberance, that President Obama was never vetted so aggressively by the opportunistic liberal media. Curiously, Carson used as evidence of this double standard the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- one of the most heavily scrutinized episodes in recent political memory. Why, Carson wondered aloud and with a straight face, had the news media failed to apply the same standards to Obama in 2008. In reality, the permanent vetting of Obama continues in earnest even today, with a little more than a year remaining in his two-term presidency. Considering how 54 percent of Republicans still believe Obama is a Muslim and a full 61 percent of Trump supporters think Obama was born in Kenya, the ongoing scrutiny has obviously stuck to the wall. But Ben Carson would have us believe Obama got a free pass -- that his allegedly unprecedented use of Teleprompters and appointment of "czars" and even the color of his suits haven't been debated at length in the press. Conversely, we're not supposed to ask serious questions about Carson's "tithing"-based tax plan or the fact that it, as well as the tax plans proposed by the other GOP A-listers, will each generate 10-year budget deficits in the trillions. We're not supposed to wonder why Carson said he received a scholarship from West Point when the prestigious military academy doesn't even offer scholarships. In other words, it's okay to nail Obama about non-issues like Teleprompters and his preference for arugula, but we shouldn't dare dig into whether Carson stabbed someone or whether he endorsed junk-science nutrition supplements. On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" the other day, right-wing talker Hugh Hewitt tried desperately to convince an incredulous Joe Scarborough that the media hasn't scrutinized Hillary Clinton with the same tenacity it's currently applying to Ben Carson. Again, more selective memory and a cynical belief that the GOP base is so ignorant and so consumed with Obama and Clinton derangement that it'll ignore the objective reality that Hillary has been relentlessly watchdogged by the press for more than 25 years. During the MSNBC segment, Scarborough limited his counter-attack against Hewitt to the past year, all through which Hillary's emails and involvement in decisions surrounding the 2012 attacks in Benghazi have been front-page news. What Scarborough didn't mention was how Hillary was thoroughly vetted in 1992, when her husband first ran for president, then throughout President Clinton's two terms, including extensive investigations into Whitewater. She was vetted again during her 2000 senatorial run; again in 2008 when she ran for president; and again after being nominated for Secretary of State. Ben Carson, on the other hand, hasn't run for a damn thing yet. Consequently, the press hasn't had any reason to look into his past or his crackpot policy ideas. Hewitt and the others think this is somehow unfair and that there's not a very well-defined contrast between Carson's new ascendancy into the limelight and Hillary's nearly permanent residency in the limelight. We're supposed to believe that Hillary's 25 years of near constant vetting never happened, while Carson's seven days of vetting is evidence of a liberal media conspiracy. And they wonder why Republicans like Scarborough are questioning what the hell is going on with his party. It's simple, really. The bullies are defining themselves as the victims of bullying. While this mind-numbing transformation is surely playing well with the base, the rest of us only see a pack of shrieking children with full diapers. In a broader sense, the ruckus over Starbucks cups is yet another bellwether, illustrating the GOP as the party of victimization. They somehow believe that by issuing red cups without an explicitly religious message printed on the side, Starbucks is not only engaging in the insanely nonexistent "War on Christmas" myth, but the coffee retailer is directly accosting Christian Republicans. Yes, the most populace religious demographic (70 percent of Americans identify as Christian), along with the most financially lucrative holiday of the year, are somehow threatened by a red cup. Frankly, if your faith is threatened by the existence of red cups at a chain of coffee stores, then it's probably time to reevaluate the strength of your faith. Perhaps in the process, the GOP faithful should take a look at Fox News Channel's and Donald Trump's use of the secular "Happy Holidays" greeting as well -- since, you know, we're talking about equal treatment of both sides. Let's be clear: the GOP's victimhood act is one of the most pathetically ironic shows of political Kabuki in recent memory. It's transparently silly, and emphasizes the long-standing observation that the Republican Party is being dragged away from the grown-up table by the increasingly unhinged base. Tuesday night's debate will likely generate more childish pee-pants dancing by these self-identified tough guys who think they have the stones to operate successfully on a precipitously hostile world stage. If John Harwood, Megyn Kelly and red coffee cups are believed to be actual threats to the integrity and fortitude of the GOP presidential field, they've already lost the election. As Scarboroough said to Hewitt, he likes to win, but the infantile victim complex on display by previously unvetted goons like Trump and Carson will only serve to elect Hillary Clinton, who with every passing tantrum by her would-be GOP challengers looks more and more presidential and entirely qualified to take on ISIS, Putin, China and every other bellicose villain in the rogues gallery, while Ben Carson can't seem to deal with Howard Kurtz or Politico without disintegrating into a sobbing mess.
Noam Chomsky: A Republican president means doom
In a new interview with Truthout's CJ Polychroniou, renowned MIT linguist and longtime political activist Noam Chomsky conveyed his fear that the election of a Republican president in 2016 could further destabilize U.S. international relations, jeopardizing the security of the nation and ripped the notion of "democracy promotion" as a driving force of U.S. foreign policy. "Supporting democratization (in reality, not rhetoric)," Chomsky explained, will likely have "consequences that the U.S. would not favor." "That is why when the U.S. supports "democracy"; it is 'top-down' forms of democracy in which traditional elites linked to the US remain in power." Chomsky cited the work of former Reagan official Thomas Carothers to demolish the myth of "democracy promotion" as a primary goal of U.S. foreign policy. "The record shows quite clearly that it is scarcely an element in policy, and quite often democracy is considered a threat - for good reasons, when we look at popular opinion," Chomsky explained, pointing to popular opinion in support of an Iranian nuclear weapon among a democratizing Egyptian populace during the Arab Spring. "Public opinion often favors social reform of the kind that would harm US-based multinationals," he noted, adding, "And much else":
These are hardly policies that the US government would like to see instituted, but authentic democracy would give a significant voice to public opinion. For similar reasons, democracy is feared at home.Asked whether he anticipated any major changes in U.S. foreign policy under a new administration, Chomsky predicted a succeeding Democratic administration would likely carry on President Obama's policy of relying on "primarily the drone global assassination campaign," which he described as breaking "new records in international terrorism," but had this even more dire prediction about a Republican as commander-in-chief:
The situation with a Republican administration is much less clear. The party has drifted far off the spectrum of parliamentary politics. If the pronouncements of the current crop of candidates can be taken seriously, the world could be facing deep trouble. Take, for example, the nuclear deal with Iran. Not only are they unanimously opposed to it but they are competing on how quickly to bomb Iran. It's a very strange moment in American political history, and in a state with awesome powers of destruction, that should cause not a little concern.Read Chomsky's full interview at Truthout. (h/t: Alternet)In a new interview with Truthout's CJ Polychroniou, renowned MIT linguist and longtime political activist Noam Chomsky conveyed his fear that the election of a Republican president in 2016 could further destabilize U.S. international relations, jeopardizing the security of the nation and ripped the notion of "democracy promotion" as a driving force of U.S. foreign policy. "Supporting democratization (in reality, not rhetoric)," Chomsky explained, will likely have "consequences that the U.S. would not favor." "That is why when the U.S. supports "democracy"; it is 'top-down' forms of democracy in which traditional elites linked to the US remain in power." Chomsky cited the work of former Reagan official Thomas Carothers to demolish the myth of "democracy promotion" as a primary goal of U.S. foreign policy. "The record shows quite clearly that it is scarcely an element in policy, and quite often democracy is considered a threat - for good reasons, when we look at popular opinion," Chomsky explained, pointing to popular opinion in support of an Iranian nuclear weapon among a democratizing Egyptian populace during the Arab Spring. "Public opinion often favors social reform of the kind that would harm US-based multinationals," he noted, adding, "And much else":
These are hardly policies that the US government would like to see instituted, but authentic democracy would give a significant voice to public opinion. For similar reasons, democracy is feared at home.Asked whether he anticipated any major changes in U.S. foreign policy under a new administration, Chomsky predicted a succeeding Democratic administration would likely carry on President Obama's policy of relying on "primarily the drone global assassination campaign," which he described as breaking "new records in international terrorism," but had this even more dire prediction about a Republican as commander-in-chief:
The situation with a Republican administration is much less clear. The party has drifted far off the spectrum of parliamentary politics. If the pronouncements of the current crop of candidates can be taken seriously, the world could be facing deep trouble. Take, for example, the nuclear deal with Iran. Not only are they unanimously opposed to it but they are competing on how quickly to bomb Iran. It's a very strange moment in American political history, and in a state with awesome powers of destruction, that should cause not a little concern.Read Chomsky's full interview at Truthout. (h/t: Alternet)
Neil deGrasse Tyson enrages gun-loving wing-nuts: “What a croc o’ sh*t!”
Famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has a particularly entertaining history of publicly irking conservatives. So it wasn't surprising when Tyson yesterday took aim at gun violence in America. And it was even less surprising that conservatives responded in characteristically cuckoo-bananas fashion.
Tyson tweeted the following gun violence statistics:
[embedtweet id="663861210073329664"]
[embedtweet id="663813313105559552"] [embedtweet id="663737372379619328"]Gun nuts had the following tantrums, curated by RawStory, comparing gun violence to obesity, auto accidents, alcohol-related deaths, and just about any other quantifiable cause of death:
[embedtweet id="663862275695054848"] [embedtweet id="663861947461300224"] [embedtweet id="663896258684186624"] You know the Second Amendment's under pressure when the right-wing base breaks out a hastily made infographic to demonstrate skewed stats: [embedtweet id="663928191480786944"] A dog called the Ivy League PhD a capitol-I "Idiot" for failing to consider the self-defense viewpoint: [embedtweet id="663863823342960640"] And then made a meme on WordArt: [embedtweet id="663862970548547584"] Tyson's message was especially prescient ahead of today's release of a McClatchy-Marist poll revealing 63 percent of voters are more concerned with gun violence than terrorism.Famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has a particularly entertaining history of publicly irking conservatives. So it wasn't surprising when Tyson yesterday took aim at gun violence in America. And it was even less surprising that conservatives responded in characteristically cuckoo-bananas fashion.
Tyson tweeted the following gun violence statistics:
[embedtweet id="663861210073329664"]
[embedtweet id="663813313105559552"] [embedtweet id="663737372379619328"]Gun nuts had the following tantrums, curated by RawStory, comparing gun violence to obesity, auto accidents, alcohol-related deaths, and just about any other quantifiable cause of death:
[embedtweet id="663862275695054848"] [embedtweet id="663861947461300224"] [embedtweet id="663896258684186624"] You know the Second Amendment's under pressure when the right-wing base breaks out a hastily made infographic to demonstrate skewed stats: [embedtweet id="663928191480786944"] A dog called the Ivy League PhD a capitol-I "Idiot" for failing to consider the self-defense viewpoint: [embedtweet id="663863823342960640"] And then made a meme on WordArt: [embedtweet id="663862970548547584"] Tyson's message was especially prescient ahead of today's release of a McClatchy-Marist poll revealing 63 percent of voters are more concerned with gun violence than terrorism.
Missouri activists vs. the press is still a story about race: This is what happens when black students can’t trust the media
Following the stunning resignations of president Tim Wolfe and chancellor R. Bowen Loftin in the wake of Black student activism at the University of Missouri-Columbia, a secondary news story is developing at the school. It is a meta-narrative about the way news gets made, who controls the telling, and how stories get framed. It is a bit about the First Amendment--and perhaps academic freedom too, insofar as activist faculty are involved. But it mostly is a story about distrust. About Black distrust of the White gaze, and an utter lack of faith in the capacity of a White press to tell Black stories with honesty. The centerpiece of this new story at Missouri is a student of photojournalism, Tim Tai, 20. On assignment from ESPN to photograph historic events on campus, he turned his camera on an encampment that protesters had pitched on the university quad. For about a week, protesters had been camping out there to "protest and strategize," anonymous sources tell me. "But, until yesterday, the media had rarely showed up to interview the students." All that changed with remarkable speed. After ignoring this story for months, hundreds of members of the press were suddenly everywhere on campus. "As the the president’s resignation announcement was unfolding," my sources relate, "the protesters decided to convene in their camp to discuss their strategy. But the journalists, of course, wanted to get an exclusive of the students’ reactions to the president’s resignation. As a consequence, the protesters--with the collaboration of other students, locals, and even faculty--decided to momentarily block the journalists’ access to the camp. In the heat of the moment, there may have been some pushback but, after the protesters convened, they invited the public, including the media, to a big party." But it is Tai's confrontation with protesters that is making the news. And this focus itself requires examination. For by focusing on a young Asian man--a member of the so-called "model minority" on a big assignment--going head to head with Black protesters living in a "makeshift tent city," the coverage is already playing off racist stereotypes. But who is filming the confrontation? From whose perspective are these events being recorded? The videographer is a young journalist named Mark Schierbecker. Ostensibly viewed through a "neutral" mechanical eye recording things-as-they-occur, the limits of the camera's frame are nonetheless shaping what we see in a very particular way. It is framing it through the reflexive lens of whiteness. As a reporter for KBIA (Mid-Missouri pubic radio) commented ruefully: "The demonstrator telling the photographer to back up is a black man. Other demonstrators nearby are white, black, men, women. The photographer appears to be Asian, though I didn't ask anyone how they identified. But, like me, most of the reporters there were white men." And this white maleness matters, Bram Sable-Smith concluded. For there is no way to avoid talking about race -- "not in a story about a demonstration against systematic oppression." And yet hardly anyone is talking about race--specifically, the nearly monolithic whiteness of the media descending on the protesters' encampment. But you wouldn't know that from watching that video. Instead, it's focused on an Asian photographer trying doggedly to take photos by invoking his First Amendment rights to be in a public space, as Black student protesters and White women do their best to get rid of him. Tai is now doing his best to turn the spotlight back where it belongs: on the systemic problems on the Missouri campus that have led to historic events still unfolding. "I'm a little perturbed at being part of the story," he tweeted. "So maybe let's focus some more reporting on systemic racism in higher ed institutions." This "unbearable whiteness of liberal media" is precisely why the Black student protesters asked journalists to please "respect" them as well as their space by leaving them alone, at least long enough to collect their thoughts. When Sable-Smith repeatedly asked for a statement, the students replied, again and again, joyfully: "To God be the Glory." He did not understand that response. Journalist Tracie Powell runs the website All Digitocracy.org, which works to support journalists of color while raising awareness of structural racism in the media. Powell is concerned about the treatment of Tai, the student photographer, but her gut instinct was that the refusal of the protesters to admit the press was, more accurately, their refusal to feed the biases of White journalism. "For me, the overwhelming impression was that they didn't trust the White reporters suddenly trying to cover the story." In conversation with me, she noted that these reporters had already shown themselves to be ranging from indifferent to outright hostile to the concerns outlined by Black students on campus, and "parachute journalism"--jumping in to a big story and then leaving--would give activists no reason to trust them. Her instincts are confirmed from various tweets from student protesters on campus, including one from #ConcernedStudent1950: "It's typically white media who don't understand the importance of respecting black spaces." It's not that Tai didn't find his First Amendment rights being challenged. He did. Protesters also put signs declaring "No Media/ Safe Space" zones, and refused to speak to the press. But these are not the nut of the story. The story is about the way local television news and other media outlets questioned and undermined the protesters’ reactions by turning the press itself into the victim. As one of my sources observed: "This is just a poor and dishonest attempt of portraying what was actually a huge victory in the name of justice. Unfortunately, this has been a frequently used tactic to discredit the efforts of those fighting against racism and other forms of oppression." Meanwhile, a new sign has appeared on campus, identifying itself as being from #ConcernedStudent1950: "Media has a 1st Amendment right to occupy campsite, 2) the media is important to tell our story and experiences at Mizzou to the world. 3) Let's welcome and thank them."Following the stunning resignations of president Tim Wolfe and chancellor R. Bowen Loftin in the wake of Black student activism at the University of Missouri-Columbia, a secondary news story is developing at the school. It is a meta-narrative about the way news gets made, who controls the telling, and how stories get framed. It is a bit about the First Amendment--and perhaps academic freedom too, insofar as activist faculty are involved. But it mostly is a story about distrust. About Black distrust of the White gaze, and an utter lack of faith in the capacity of a White press to tell Black stories with honesty. The centerpiece of this new story at Missouri is a student of photojournalism, Tim Tai, 20. On assignment from ESPN to photograph historic events on campus, he turned his camera on an encampment that protesters had pitched on the university quad. For about a week, protesters had been camping out there to "protest and strategize," anonymous sources tell me. "But, until yesterday, the media had rarely showed up to interview the students." All that changed with remarkable speed. After ignoring this story for months, hundreds of members of the press were suddenly everywhere on campus. "As the the president’s resignation announcement was unfolding," my sources relate, "the protesters decided to convene in their camp to discuss their strategy. But the journalists, of course, wanted to get an exclusive of the students’ reactions to the president’s resignation. As a consequence, the protesters--with the collaboration of other students, locals, and even faculty--decided to momentarily block the journalists’ access to the camp. In the heat of the moment, there may have been some pushback but, after the protesters convened, they invited the public, including the media, to a big party." But it is Tai's confrontation with protesters that is making the news. And this focus itself requires examination. For by focusing on a young Asian man--a member of the so-called "model minority" on a big assignment--going head to head with Black protesters living in a "makeshift tent city," the coverage is already playing off racist stereotypes. But who is filming the confrontation? From whose perspective are these events being recorded? The videographer is a young journalist named Mark Schierbecker. Ostensibly viewed through a "neutral" mechanical eye recording things-as-they-occur, the limits of the camera's frame are nonetheless shaping what we see in a very particular way. It is framing it through the reflexive lens of whiteness. As a reporter for KBIA (Mid-Missouri pubic radio) commented ruefully: "The demonstrator telling the photographer to back up is a black man. Other demonstrators nearby are white, black, men, women. The photographer appears to be Asian, though I didn't ask anyone how they identified. But, like me, most of the reporters there were white men." And this white maleness matters, Bram Sable-Smith concluded. For there is no way to avoid talking about race -- "not in a story about a demonstration against systematic oppression." And yet hardly anyone is talking about race--specifically, the nearly monolithic whiteness of the media descending on the protesters' encampment. But you wouldn't know that from watching that video. Instead, it's focused on an Asian photographer trying doggedly to take photos by invoking his First Amendment rights to be in a public space, as Black student protesters and White women do their best to get rid of him. Tai is now doing his best to turn the spotlight back where it belongs: on the systemic problems on the Missouri campus that have led to historic events still unfolding. "I'm a little perturbed at being part of the story," he tweeted. "So maybe let's focus some more reporting on systemic racism in higher ed institutions." This "unbearable whiteness of liberal media" is precisely why the Black student protesters asked journalists to please "respect" them as well as their space by leaving them alone, at least long enough to collect their thoughts. When Sable-Smith repeatedly asked for a statement, the students replied, again and again, joyfully: "To God be the Glory." He did not understand that response. Journalist Tracie Powell runs the website All Digitocracy.org, which works to support journalists of color while raising awareness of structural racism in the media. Powell is concerned about the treatment of Tai, the student photographer, but her gut instinct was that the refusal of the protesters to admit the press was, more accurately, their refusal to feed the biases of White journalism. "For me, the overwhelming impression was that they didn't trust the White reporters suddenly trying to cover the story." In conversation with me, she noted that these reporters had already shown themselves to be ranging from indifferent to outright hostile to the concerns outlined by Black students on campus, and "parachute journalism"--jumping in to a big story and then leaving--would give activists no reason to trust them. Her instincts are confirmed from various tweets from student protesters on campus, including one from #ConcernedStudent1950: "It's typically white media who don't understand the importance of respecting black spaces." It's not that Tai didn't find his First Amendment rights being challenged. He did. Protesters also put signs declaring "No Media/ Safe Space" zones, and refused to speak to the press. But these are not the nut of the story. The story is about the way local television news and other media outlets questioned and undermined the protesters’ reactions by turning the press itself into the victim. As one of my sources observed: "This is just a poor and dishonest attempt of portraying what was actually a huge victory in the name of justice. Unfortunately, this has been a frequently used tactic to discredit the efforts of those fighting against racism and other forms of oppression." Meanwhile, a new sign has appeared on campus, identifying itself as being from #ConcernedStudent1950: "Media has a 1st Amendment right to occupy campsite, 2) the media is important to tell our story and experiences at Mizzou to the world. 3) Let's welcome and thank them."
Ben Carson’s oddball appeal: “The right has not traditionally wanted black conservatives who are all over the map”
The neurosurgeon turned leading presidential candidate Ben Carson has provoked passionate support and head-scratching in equal measure. In spite of, or perhaps because of, a series of bizarre statements, his polling has remained high, and he goes into the Republican debate tonight the leading candidate. What explains Carson’s success and staying power? How much is he indebted to the tradition of black conservatism? To what extent does he appeal to black voters? We spoke to Angela Dillard, a professor of African American Studies at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor whose specialties include black conservatism. Shed’s also the author of “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner Now?: Multicultural Conservatism in America.” The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Carson is polling higher than a lot of pundits expected – and he’s managed to hold on. Are you are surprised as some others? I am. I assumed this would be another Herman Cain, or Alan Keyes… There was some early pre-Labor Day, “These are entertaining figures to watch.” It was political entertainment. So I had assumed this was not going to be a serious candidacy; I was waiting for a [collapse] to happen. I’ve been really stunned that he’s polling really well, consistently, and seems to have real pockets of support. Do you have a sense of where his support is coming from – evangelicals? People jaded with politics? He seems to be doing pretty well among the Tea Party constituencies – they’re received him well. And certainly evangelical communities. That’s really an important base for him – my guess is that’s where it’s strongest. Because that’s a community that’s very sensitive to the charge of racism. To what extent is he typical of black conservatives? There are some things in his profile that are right in line – especially his view of abortion. It’s deeply religiously informed, and even the analogy between abortion and slavery – I know he’s taken a lot of flak for it, which I think is a little unfair. Especially in African-American religious communities, that is not an unusual view at all. It’s interesting to see white evangelicals grasp onto that. If you look back – before Jesse Jackson ran for president, he made that exact same analogy, that in African-American communities you don’t fool around with questions of personhood… You don’t make those kinds of judgments about whose life is valuable and whose isn’t. So yeah – that has been a strong narrative. It’s one of those places where you could see the left and right criss-cross. Are there ways that Carson stands out from the tradition of black conservatives? The different things he’s willing to pull from that seem to be all over the political spectrum. Not particularly in line with what we’d think of as a conservative position. Could you give us an example or two? I think it might be statements around education. He’s just talking in a different language compared to the Tea Party right, or any constituency inside the Republican party, as best I can tell. Who knows what his position actually is on foreign relations or military involvement? On the key registers where you say, “Here’s how he lines up,” he just doesn’t. He didn’t come up through politics, so a lot of his views seem anomalous compared to other politicians. Part of it seems idiosyncratic, and part of it is just incomprehensible. There’s an exchange between him and George Stephanopolous, and it just goes nowhere, because he can’t get an actual answer. How widespread do you think his support is among black voters? I’m aware that that group is not a monolith. I don’t think the support is very widespread or very deep. I think there’s interest in a credible black candidate within the Republican party. There’s certainly sympathy around issues of abortion, sexual morality – it’s a very conservative part of the American electorate, especially on religious grounds. But there’s been almost no attempt to reach out – the rap thing not withstanding. There’s no strategy with which to reach out to black voters… If you look at who’s on his staff, there doesn’t seem to be anyone with any capacity to understand, finally, what it means for a candidate on the right to be able to make those inroads into black communities. How does black conservatism tend to vary from its white equivalent? There are different variants around black conservatism. One variant comes up through a black nationalist route – an almost Garveyite expression, that the community needs to bind together… Especially to be competitive in the free market. It’s a communal understanding. So you have to mobilize some notion of race. Racism tends to be downplayed, but race becomes a positive, organizing thing. The other side tends to be much more individualistic, embraces an ideology of the free market through a kind of race-less individualism, where thinking about race is [considered] precisely the problem. Where he sits in that is really kind of interesting. It doesn’t seem to me he’s been “We need to be post-race.” He’s mobilizing a racial identity that he doesn’t want to reject or shove to the side. But he’s not making a nationalist appeal either. He’s in really interesting territory with regards to race – he doesn’t feel the need to go any of the routes that have organized black conservatism. And he doesn’t often make his race explicit. Here and there you can see it…. When he compares things to slavery – anything he doesn’t like, he compares to slavery. And he knows that he can do that because he’s African-American. Part of his appeal is his African-American identity and his lack of anger about it. He’s smart – he knows it’s there, he doesn’t need to draw attention to it. Do you see any historical parallels to Carson – does he remind you of anyone? He doesn’t. Even now that we have some pretty developed models for how to be a black Republican, he’s looking for different kinds of alternatives. It’s because he’s not schooled in politics. It’s kind of refreshing. And a [presidential] candidate has not been able to do that. Either a candidate plays a firm role that the parties want them to play – whether it’s the Democrats or the Republicans – or you’re not gonna be invited into the arena. The right has not traditionally wanted black conservatives who are all over the map – they’re there to play a role, and if you deviate from it, they’re going to dump you.The neurosurgeon turned leading presidential candidate Ben Carson has provoked passionate support and head-scratching in equal measure. In spite of, or perhaps because of, a series of bizarre statements, his polling has remained high, and he goes into the Republican debate tonight the leading candidate. What explains Carson’s success and staying power? How much is he indebted to the tradition of black conservatism? To what extent does he appeal to black voters? We spoke to Angela Dillard, a professor of African American Studies at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor whose specialties include black conservatism. Shed’s also the author of “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner Now?: Multicultural Conservatism in America.” The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Carson is polling higher than a lot of pundits expected – and he’s managed to hold on. Are you are surprised as some others? I am. I assumed this would be another Herman Cain, or Alan Keyes… There was some early pre-Labor Day, “These are entertaining figures to watch.” It was political entertainment. So I had assumed this was not going to be a serious candidacy; I was waiting for a [collapse] to happen. I’ve been really stunned that he’s polling really well, consistently, and seems to have real pockets of support. Do you have a sense of where his support is coming from – evangelicals? People jaded with politics? He seems to be doing pretty well among the Tea Party constituencies – they’re received him well. And certainly evangelical communities. That’s really an important base for him – my guess is that’s where it’s strongest. Because that’s a community that’s very sensitive to the charge of racism. To what extent is he typical of black conservatives? There are some things in his profile that are right in line – especially his view of abortion. It’s deeply religiously informed, and even the analogy between abortion and slavery – I know he’s taken a lot of flak for it, which I think is a little unfair. Especially in African-American religious communities, that is not an unusual view at all. It’s interesting to see white evangelicals grasp onto that. If you look back – before Jesse Jackson ran for president, he made that exact same analogy, that in African-American communities you don’t fool around with questions of personhood… You don’t make those kinds of judgments about whose life is valuable and whose isn’t. So yeah – that has been a strong narrative. It’s one of those places where you could see the left and right criss-cross. Are there ways that Carson stands out from the tradition of black conservatives? The different things he’s willing to pull from that seem to be all over the political spectrum. Not particularly in line with what we’d think of as a conservative position. Could you give us an example or two? I think it might be statements around education. He’s just talking in a different language compared to the Tea Party right, or any constituency inside the Republican party, as best I can tell. Who knows what his position actually is on foreign relations or military involvement? On the key registers where you say, “Here’s how he lines up,” he just doesn’t. He didn’t come up through politics, so a lot of his views seem anomalous compared to other politicians. Part of it seems idiosyncratic, and part of it is just incomprehensible. There’s an exchange between him and George Stephanopolous, and it just goes nowhere, because he can’t get an actual answer. How widespread do you think his support is among black voters? I’m aware that that group is not a monolith. I don’t think the support is very widespread or very deep. I think there’s interest in a credible black candidate within the Republican party. There’s certainly sympathy around issues of abortion, sexual morality – it’s a very conservative part of the American electorate, especially on religious grounds. But there’s been almost no attempt to reach out – the rap thing not withstanding. There’s no strategy with which to reach out to black voters… If you look at who’s on his staff, there doesn’t seem to be anyone with any capacity to understand, finally, what it means for a candidate on the right to be able to make those inroads into black communities. How does black conservatism tend to vary from its white equivalent? There are different variants around black conservatism. One variant comes up through a black nationalist route – an almost Garveyite expression, that the community needs to bind together… Especially to be competitive in the free market. It’s a communal understanding. So you have to mobilize some notion of race. Racism tends to be downplayed, but race becomes a positive, organizing thing. The other side tends to be much more individualistic, embraces an ideology of the free market through a kind of race-less individualism, where thinking about race is [considered] precisely the problem. Where he sits in that is really kind of interesting. It doesn’t seem to me he’s been “We need to be post-race.” He’s mobilizing a racial identity that he doesn’t want to reject or shove to the side. But he’s not making a nationalist appeal either. He’s in really interesting territory with regards to race – he doesn’t feel the need to go any of the routes that have organized black conservatism. And he doesn’t often make his race explicit. Here and there you can see it…. When he compares things to slavery – anything he doesn’t like, he compares to slavery. And he knows that he can do that because he’s African-American. Part of his appeal is his African-American identity and his lack of anger about it. He’s smart – he knows it’s there, he doesn’t need to draw attention to it. Do you see any historical parallels to Carson – does he remind you of anyone? He doesn’t. Even now that we have some pretty developed models for how to be a black Republican, he’s looking for different kinds of alternatives. It’s because he’s not schooled in politics. It’s kind of refreshing. And a [presidential] candidate has not been able to do that. Either a candidate plays a firm role that the parties want them to play – whether it’s the Democrats or the Republicans – or you’re not gonna be invited into the arena. The right has not traditionally wanted black conservatives who are all over the map – they’re there to play a role, and if you deviate from it, they’re going to dump you.The neurosurgeon turned leading presidential candidate Ben Carson has provoked passionate support and head-scratching in equal measure. In spite of, or perhaps because of, a series of bizarre statements, his polling has remained high, and he goes into the Republican debate tonight the leading candidate. What explains Carson’s success and staying power? How much is he indebted to the tradition of black conservatism? To what extent does he appeal to black voters? We spoke to Angela Dillard, a professor of African American Studies at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor whose specialties include black conservatism. Shed’s also the author of “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner Now?: Multicultural Conservatism in America.” The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Carson is polling higher than a lot of pundits expected – and he’s managed to hold on. Are you are surprised as some others? I am. I assumed this would be another Herman Cain, or Alan Keyes… There was some early pre-Labor Day, “These are entertaining figures to watch.” It was political entertainment. So I had assumed this was not going to be a serious candidacy; I was waiting for a [collapse] to happen. I’ve been really stunned that he’s polling really well, consistently, and seems to have real pockets of support. Do you have a sense of where his support is coming from – evangelicals? People jaded with politics? He seems to be doing pretty well among the Tea Party constituencies – they’re received him well. And certainly evangelical communities. That’s really an important base for him – my guess is that’s where it’s strongest. Because that’s a community that’s very sensitive to the charge of racism. To what extent is he typical of black conservatives? There are some things in his profile that are right in line – especially his view of abortion. It’s deeply religiously informed, and even the analogy between abortion and slavery – I know he’s taken a lot of flak for it, which I think is a little unfair. Especially in African-American religious communities, that is not an unusual view at all. It’s interesting to see white evangelicals grasp onto that. If you look back – before Jesse Jackson ran for president, he made that exact same analogy, that in African-American communities you don’t fool around with questions of personhood… You don’t make those kinds of judgments about whose life is valuable and whose isn’t. So yeah – that has been a strong narrative. It’s one of those places where you could see the left and right criss-cross. Are there ways that Carson stands out from the tradition of black conservatives? The different things he’s willing to pull from that seem to be all over the political spectrum. Not particularly in line with what we’d think of as a conservative position. Could you give us an example or two? I think it might be statements around education. He’s just talking in a different language compared to the Tea Party right, or any constituency inside the Republican party, as best I can tell. Who knows what his position actually is on foreign relations or military involvement? On the key registers where you say, “Here’s how he lines up,” he just doesn’t. He didn’t come up through politics, so a lot of his views seem anomalous compared to other politicians. Part of it seems idiosyncratic, and part of it is just incomprehensible. There’s an exchange between him and George Stephanopolous, and it just goes nowhere, because he can’t get an actual answer. How widespread do you think his support is among black voters? I’m aware that that group is not a monolith. I don’t think the support is very widespread or very deep. I think there’s interest in a credible black candidate within the Republican party. There’s certainly sympathy around issues of abortion, sexual morality – it’s a very conservative part of the American electorate, especially on religious grounds. But there’s been almost no attempt to reach out – the rap thing not withstanding. There’s no strategy with which to reach out to black voters… If you look at who’s on his staff, there doesn’t seem to be anyone with any capacity to understand, finally, what it means for a candidate on the right to be able to make those inroads into black communities. How does black conservatism tend to vary from its white equivalent? There are different variants around black conservatism. One variant comes up through a black nationalist route – an almost Garveyite expression, that the community needs to bind together… Especially to be competitive in the free market. It’s a communal understanding. So you have to mobilize some notion of race. Racism tends to be downplayed, but race becomes a positive, organizing thing. The other side tends to be much more individualistic, embraces an ideology of the free market through a kind of race-less individualism, where thinking about race is [considered] precisely the problem. Where he sits in that is really kind of interesting. It doesn’t seem to me he’s been “We need to be post-race.” He’s mobilizing a racial identity that he doesn’t want to reject or shove to the side. But he’s not making a nationalist appeal either. He’s in really interesting territory with regards to race – he doesn’t feel the need to go any of the routes that have organized black conservatism. And he doesn’t often make his race explicit. Here and there you can see it…. When he compares things to slavery – anything he doesn’t like, he compares to slavery. And he knows that he can do that because he’s African-American. Part of his appeal is his African-American identity and his lack of anger about it. He’s smart – he knows it’s there, he doesn’t need to draw attention to it. Do you see any historical parallels to Carson – does he remind you of anyone? He doesn’t. Even now that we have some pretty developed models for how to be a black Republican, he’s looking for different kinds of alternatives. It’s because he’s not schooled in politics. It’s kind of refreshing. And a [presidential] candidate has not been able to do that. Either a candidate plays a firm role that the parties want them to play – whether it’s the Democrats or the Republicans – or you’re not gonna be invited into the arena. The right has not traditionally wanted black conservatives who are all over the map – they’re there to play a role, and if you deviate from it, they’re going to dump you.The neurosurgeon turned leading presidential candidate Ben Carson has provoked passionate support and head-scratching in equal measure. In spite of, or perhaps because of, a series of bizarre statements, his polling has remained high, and he goes into the Republican debate tonight the leading candidate. What explains Carson’s success and staying power? How much is he indebted to the tradition of black conservatism? To what extent does he appeal to black voters? We spoke to Angela Dillard, a professor of African American Studies at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor whose specialties include black conservatism. Shed’s also the author of “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner Now?: Multicultural Conservatism in America.” The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Carson is polling higher than a lot of pundits expected – and he’s managed to hold on. Are you are surprised as some others? I am. I assumed this would be another Herman Cain, or Alan Keyes… There was some early pre-Labor Day, “These are entertaining figures to watch.” It was political entertainment. So I had assumed this was not going to be a serious candidacy; I was waiting for a [collapse] to happen. I’ve been really stunned that he’s polling really well, consistently, and seems to have real pockets of support. Do you have a sense of where his support is coming from – evangelicals? People jaded with politics? He seems to be doing pretty well among the Tea Party constituencies – they’re received him well. And certainly evangelical communities. That’s really an important base for him – my guess is that’s where it’s strongest. Because that’s a community that’s very sensitive to the charge of racism. To what extent is he typical of black conservatives? There are some things in his profile that are right in line – especially his view of abortion. It’s deeply religiously informed, and even the analogy between abortion and slavery – I know he’s taken a lot of flak for it, which I think is a little unfair. Especially in African-American religious communities, that is not an unusual view at all. It’s interesting to see white evangelicals grasp onto that. If you look back – before Jesse Jackson ran for president, he made that exact same analogy, that in African-American communities you don’t fool around with questions of personhood… You don’t make those kinds of judgments about whose life is valuable and whose isn’t. So yeah – that has been a strong narrative. It’s one of those places where you could see the left and right criss-cross. Are there ways that Carson stands out from the tradition of black conservatives? The different things he’s willing to pull from that seem to be all over the political spectrum. Not particularly in line with what we’d think of as a conservative position. Could you give us an example or two? I think it might be statements around education. He’s just talking in a different language compared to the Tea Party right, or any constituency inside the Republican party, as best I can tell. Who knows what his position actually is on foreign relations or military involvement? On the key registers where you say, “Here’s how he lines up,” he just doesn’t. He didn’t come up through politics, so a lot of his views seem anomalous compared to other politicians. Part of it seems idiosyncratic, and part of it is just incomprehensible. There’s an exchange between him and George Stephanopolous, and it just goes nowhere, because he can’t get an actual answer. How widespread do you think his support is among black voters? I’m aware that that group is not a monolith. I don’t think the support is very widespread or very deep. I think there’s interest in a credible black candidate within the Republican party. There’s certainly sympathy around issues of abortion, sexual morality – it’s a very conservative part of the American electorate, especially on religious grounds. But there’s been almost no attempt to reach out – the rap thing not withstanding. There’s no strategy with which to reach out to black voters… If you look at who’s on his staff, there doesn’t seem to be anyone with any capacity to understand, finally, what it means for a candidate on the right to be able to make those inroads into black communities. How does black conservatism tend to vary from its white equivalent? There are different variants around black conservatism. One variant comes up through a black nationalist route – an almost Garveyite expression, that the community needs to bind together… Especially to be competitive in the free market. It’s a communal understanding. So you have to mobilize some notion of race. Racism tends to be downplayed, but race becomes a positive, organizing thing. The other side tends to be much more individualistic, embraces an ideology of the free market through a kind of race-less individualism, where thinking about race is [considered] precisely the problem. Where he sits in that is really kind of interesting. It doesn’t seem to me he’s been “We need to be post-race.” He’s mobilizing a racial identity that he doesn’t want to reject or shove to the side. But he’s not making a nationalist appeal either. He’s in really interesting territory with regards to race – he doesn’t feel the need to go any of the routes that have organized black conservatism. And he doesn’t often make his race explicit. Here and there you can see it…. When he compares things to slavery – anything he doesn’t like, he compares to slavery. And he knows that he can do that because he’s African-American. Part of his appeal is his African-American identity and his lack of anger about it. He’s smart – he knows it’s there, he doesn’t need to draw attention to it. Do you see any historical parallels to Carson – does he remind you of anyone? He doesn’t. Even now that we have some pretty developed models for how to be a black Republican, he’s looking for different kinds of alternatives. It’s because he’s not schooled in politics. It’s kind of refreshing. And a [presidential] candidate has not been able to do that. Either a candidate plays a firm role that the parties want them to play – whether it’s the Democrats or the Republicans – or you’re not gonna be invited into the arena. The right has not traditionally wanted black conservatives who are all over the map – they’re there to play a role, and if you deviate from it, they’re going to dump you.
