Alright, I have been just itching to finally address the main issue of this post here in my blog for a while, and I will DEFINITELY get to it today. First, though, I'd like to keep up with current events. [I actually don't end up addressing that issue, only touch on it, typical. I will, though dedicate the entirety of my next blog to it and it will rock the shit.]
I've been talking a lot lately about standards, about accountability. What I said last time, I keep seeing the relevancy of it every single day in the issues that affect this country. For a long time I have had to listen to the conservative right shout their accusations of liberal bias. Never mind that 98% of the time these accusations are complete bullshit. Never mind that conservatives scream bias every time a liberal publication is called on, or a liberal editorial is printed, or a small-time liberal journalist gets seated at the front of a press conference, or a story that could potentially harm a conservative candidate is printed. It's all bias, they're out to get us, lies and blasphemy! Well, guess what? Vindication is nigh.
If my interpretation of these claims is correct, conservatives feel attacked by the media. They feel that these so-called attacks (what most sane people call journalism) are directed primarily at them, and these attacks are unwarranted. Normally, I'd say something about the conservatives needing to take a hint, and that if everyone is pointing their fingers at them then maybe, just maybe, there's a good reason for it. Alas, I have both been there and done that, and the issue is getting old. That doesn't mean it's going away anytime soon, and the best way to further my point without retreading familiar ground is to look at the issue in a new perspective. How about, oh I don't know, in relation to my musings on accountability?
Let's look at this recent issue over an insensitive cartoon published by the New York Post. Recently, a political cartoonist published a cartoon likening President Obama to an ape. Whether the cartoonist was being overtly racist or just completely ignorant of the connotation this comparison brings with it is not the issue. The issue here is that the likening of certain minorities to specific animals, apes included, is a despicable tactic that has its own ugly place in history. Just because a separate tactic of linking politicians to apes has been used in the past does not justify it in this instance. The journalist should have known better and should have had a little more integrity than he did. Even if it was an oversight in the first place, not only has the Post not since issued an apology, but they have been indignant in saying that the issue is being blown out of proportion. Whether you agree with that or not, you should still have the sense and decency to see that Obama is our first African-American president, that the comparison of blacks to apes has a sad precedence in our society, and that regardless of if you meant it or not that connotation of racism still exists. The cartoon was directed straight at Obama, it used imagery that was at best reminiscent of a hateful period, and the people who published it don't even have the decency to say that maybe it was a bad decision to publish it regardless of what it was really intended to mean.
What does this have to do with the press? Well, it's an attack. It's clearly directed at Obama, it uses racial imagery, it's the lowest form of a personal attack that you could possibly use. But wait, it's coming from right wing media. The same right-wing media that complains every time a story is run about a conservative, the same right wing media that cried bias during the campaign when publications ran stories about Sarah Palin's political history, the same right-wing media that say there's a liberal bias because the media dares question the President with the lowest approval rating ever. But you know what, this isn't even about trading tic for tac. This isn't about saying, "look, we have universal standards that we can all agree to, now let's stick to them." Fuck universal standards, how about sticking to your own personal standards? You're going to accuse the liberal media of running personal attacks and then turn around and publish shit like this?
Speaking of personal attacks, Do I even need to go any further than this? You see where I'm going with this, correct? I am knee deep in conservative pundits these days. Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, have all popped back up on my radar just when I thought people were starting to realize them for what they really are: sensationalistic morons. Sadly, it now seems that they might be starting to gain traction. When things start going bad, those without direction turn to the loudest. It's not like their message has changed. They were saying the same things when Bush was in power, when Clinton was in power, when Bush was in power, etc. When the economy was doing well under their free market principles, government had too much power. When the economy took a turn under free market principles, government still has too much power. Never mind that deregulation hasn't slowed down since the eighties, regulation got us where we are.
Anyways, I will get to the others later as I do have yet to address some of what they've been saying, but the man at the forefront of my concerns right now is Mr. Rush Limbaugh. Yes, Mr., "I want President Obama to fail," Limbaugh. The first question I have about this issue is a simple one, did liberals treat Bush the same way when he took office? I don't recall anyone wishing for Bush to fail, nor do I recall any very heavy criticism against him until after 9/11, at least none on the same level as President Obama is receiving from the political right. You can talk about bi-partisanship and media bias all you want, but this is vehement. The same people who throw out accusation of media bias for reporting on a vice presidential candidate's political history are now saying they hope the president fails just because they don't agree with his politics.
In my opinion, you should always have a reason for believing in what you do. My reason for believing in the policies that I do is that I believe they will help the greatest number of people. I believe in spending money on health care because I know that is a big expense for many Americans and that shouldering or helping to shoulder that burden will free up more money for average Americans to spend in our faltering economy. I believe in spending money on electric cars because not only will it help the environment, but it will create American manufacturing jobs. I believe in tax credits for people who buy those cars because it will stimulate that industry at a time when many Americans are weary of buying electric cars. I believe in spending money on new power sources like geothermal, solar, and wind and building a new power grid because it will help the environment, save Americans money by wasting less energy in delivery, and put thousands of Americans to work. I support cannabis legalization because, among many other reasons, an 8% tax on nationwide sales of cannabis could generate 6 billion dollars a year or more in revenue. I also support legalization because cannabis' illegal status is currently prohibiting and impairing market research on the practical applications of hemp, which range from bio-fuels to power generation, from clothing to eco-friendly building material, and from health supplements to eco-friendly oil products.
What's the common thread here? A purpose, a reason. What does Rush Limbaugh have? Feelings, labels. "I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation," said Limbaugh. Now I'm going to have a field day with this in a minute, but for right now I'm going to focus on the capitalism part. Limbaugh describes his ideals, but only with buzz words. "We believe in individual liberty," he says, "capitalism...limited government." He also says, of the differences between liberals and conservatives, "I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals."
This is my biggest problem with him. This isn't being unsure, this is being objective and open-minded. Searching for the truth and changing certain aspects of your ideals as your understanding grows is nothing to be ashamed of, indignantly sticking to dated ideals and refusing to debate in an objective manner, on the other hand, IS something to be ashamed of. Mr. Limbaugh wants to change that, though. That's supposed to be a point of pride, that you don't ever listen to anybody, that you spew propaganda in order to play on people's emotions. Concerning capitalism, what if our capitalist practices serve to hinder individual liberties? Is blindly sticking to those practices the right thing to do? What if there's a way to keep capitalism in tact and protect those individual liberties, but it requires a small bit of socialism, one that won't threaten the operation of our capitalist economy? Oh no, that's going too far, that's going to lead to the downfall of America, that's selling out your beliefs. No it's not, it's this little thing called compromise.
The worst part of this, though, is his timing. He doesn't wait until Obama's program has been given time to fail or succeed, he doesn't wait until the program has been passed into law, he doesn't even wait until details are released. As soon as talk starts about spending he goes on this rant. Rush Limbaugh doesn't care if the President's policies might do some good or not, he wants him to fail anyways. What if this eventually leads to a stronger economy? What if this improves social parity while keeping capitalism in tact? What if this creates jobs and strengthens industries? Nope, he still hopes it fails. Rush Limbaugh is hopelessly attached to his ideals no matter of if they're supported by facts or not. Every economist out there is blaming deregulation for the current economic position, and Rush is screaming for more deregulation. Apparently the liberals are responsible for the current state of things. he doesn't know how or why, he won't offer theories on that, but he does know that those elitist liberals with their anti-American agendas are responsible. That, "magic negro," is responsible. Everyone is responsible except for people whom he supports. He is living in his own fantasy world. He's the Trainman in The Matrix, he built this place, he makes the rules. In his fantasy world, Rush Limbaugh is god.
The funny thing is, this all wouldn't be a problem if it was just Rush and his ego. He can live in his fantasy world all he wants, the problem is that he has a national audience and that he uses his platform to brainwash people using his propaganda. He plays on emotions. "I believe in AMERICA, and the liberals don't. I BELIEVE in my principles, liberals are weak." I spoke, in the first part, about accountability. Now, keeping what I said in mind, I'd like to talk about responsibility. We live in America, Rush has the right to say whatever he wants. I hate to quote the corniest movie line ever, but with great power comes great responsibility. Just because Rush CAN doesn't mean he SHOULD. He is put in a position of power. He has a sway over the opinions of a good deal of people, and keeping that in mind he should hold himself to a greater degree of accountability. That's not saying anything about his views, it's saying something about his methods. Can we have a political discussion in this country about operation rather than the typical partisan shouting matches? Instead of branding his opinions with words like, freedom, America, and liberty, can he, just once, talk about how his theories operate in the real world? Can he discuss pros and cons, or how issues affect different groups in different ways? That is what America needs, serious discussion. Every day, when he goes on the air, he fights against that in the manner in which he argues.
Now on to the titular issue of this blog. One reason I believe people like Rush Limbaugh can argue the way they do for the issues they do is because they've never experienced life on the other side of things, they've never taken the time to view life through their opposition's perspective. Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reily, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, all are part of at least two dominant groups. Two of them are part of a minority, but they're all white, all Christian, and mostly male. Regardless of gender, they've all been raised in sheltered white environments, by other white people who are part of that same environment. Could Rush Limbaugh throw the, "N," word around as generously as he does if had a black relative? Could Bill O'Reily talk about lynchings so easily if he had witnessed one, or had someone he cared about be lynched? I should hope not.
What these people talk about sounds good, I will admit that. Libertarianism sounds great. No taxes, no government intrusion, it's what America's all about, right? But if you look at how the economic structure would change without progressive taxation, democracy itself could erode. If industry is allowed to grow unchecked, and personal wealth is able to be stockpiled without repercussion, and the people with the most wealth control means of production, that means they control the economy. If they control means of production, they also control prices. In addition, they control salary and wages because there's no government protection for unions. Libertarians also control media because, of course, they have the most wealth and can control the most news outlets. They also can spend unmatchable amounts of money on lobbying, and have a distinct political advantage because they can afford education easier than anyone else. They also control the economy and wages, so anyone that they don't want to receive the same education as them basically can't.
And, of course, how do you determine who constitutes this RULING CLASS? Well, the buildup of this class came from being able to pass on wealth without taxation and from repealing income taxes. Therefore, the people who already have the most wealth and the largest salaries constitute this class, no matter how they got there. Because African-Americans have still not recovered economically from slavery and years of discriminatory practices like red lining, they do not hold a significant position within that class. because Latinos have emigrated more recently than most other ethnicities, they don't hold reputable status within that class. Single mothers who have been abandoned and must work constantly to support their children, they don't get admission because they haven't been able to stockpile wealth. Working class citizens, gee, you almost made it, but unfortunately the system you were previously a part of was set up so that the people at the top got paid inordinately more than the people who constituted their work force. Religious minorities? Huh, yeah right. There may be freedom of religion, but people Like Limbaugh and O'Reily support CHRISTIAN values, because everyone knows those are the best. This is not America, this is not meritocracy, this is an Aristocracy disguised as a Democracy.
So yes, it sounds good at first. After all, freedom, how can you argue against that? Well, freedom can lead to a lack of freedom. If we followed Libertarian philosophy, something like the previous scenario would undoubtedly take place if allowed to continue long enough. Like I said, that is not freedom, that results in a lack of freedom for all but the hegemonic order. it is born out of freedom, though. if you allow people total economic freedom, they will use it in a way that suppresses individual freedom. It has always worked out that way in every iteration of free market economics. in the case of France, it led to a wide-scale rebellion that turned out to be one of the bloodiest in European history. Back to my original theme, would these people be taking the same positions if they were in one of the classes that would be unfairly suppressed? If they were born in a ghetto, or in the projects with little hope to get an education? If they knew that the best they could hope for was to die of old age in poverty and the worst was to die before reaching puberty because of violence, with an outside chance of going through high school and going on to a university or getting a job that paid them well enough to move to a better area, would they have the same outlook? If their father's first home had lost the majority of its value, condemning him to live in poverty, and their grandfather had been lynched, all because of the color of their skin, would they still say that everyone who lives in poverty does so because they don't work hard enough? If someone dragged them from the back of an automobile because of their sexual orientation, or took them in to custody for wearing the traditional garments of their culture, would they still hold such radical views? Again, I should hope not.
What really brought my interest to this subject at this time was something I heard on the radio today. I heard a legal analyst run down the State Supreme Court of California challenge to Prop 8. While he was a liberal analyst, he admitted that the court was dominated by Republicans, that the case that made gay marriage legal in the first place passed by only one vote, and that, and this is the one that really gets me, in all probability the court would decide that because the people voted and the majority was in favor of Prop 8 they would rule that Prop 8 was constitutional. When I talk about the failing of democracy, this is what I mean. Are we going to revert to strictly majority rules? Fine, then how about we go down to a deep south state and try to pass an amendment that allows for slavery, or maybe one that brings back Jim Crowe laws? If I can get a majority of people to vote in favor of public school segregation, does that make it right? FUCK NO! Any asswipe that justifies discrimination on the basis of popular opinion does not only deserve to not be allowed to hold a seat on any Supreme Court, they don't deserve to hold public office at all. I know I talk a lot about emotions and not bringing them into politics, but I can't help but look at an issue like this and not get emotional. When you look at this in context and see all the hurdles homosexuals in this country had to leap over just to be treated like average citizens, to avoid police brutality, to be able to hold down a job, to be able to hold public office, and, in the case of California, to hold legal marital status just like any other couple in America, and then see all of that momentum pushed back by one vote I don't see how you can possibly keep your heart from sinking a little. Fuck if you're comfortable with gay marriage, fuck what you think about homosexuality, this is supposed to be America. This is supposed to be the land where there is no discrimination, where someone who's been thrown out and disreagarded can find a place for themselves, and where no opinion is too small to make a difference. In that same America, a minority group has been fighting for decades for fair treatment, come all this way through muders and institutionalized brutality, through public humiliation and systematic exclusion, and finally found one place in the country where they can almost be treated with the same respect as everybody else, and because of a majority rules vote their entire movement takes a huge step back. That is disheartening, that is a failure of the democratic proccess and everything this country stands for.
And why does this happen? Because people do not understand empathy. I recently saw an episode of Frontline concerned with advertising that brought up a crucial point of how the democratic process in this country works. A political activist stated a truth in an interview that I think is all too commonly covered up, that advertising in political campaigns, instead of making you think of the common good, makes you think of your own needs as key. You're not worried about the basic civil rights of homosexuals, you're worried about your own problems like how you explain this to your children, or more accurately, how you're going to hide it. If it's legal then it becomes almost impossible to hide, and what happens then? You can't acknowledge their lifestyle as acceptable, that just isn't Christian.
What this country needs is empathy. Like I've said before, democracy is born out of the oppression of one or more groups. If all democracy breeds is more systematic opression, then what's the point? If we just continue the cycle, if we use a fair system to create unfair conditions for select groups, then why even have a democracy? We need to be concerned about the needs of our fellow citizens regardless of if we share those needs or not.
It is a lack of empathy that allows this type of behavior, a bi-product of the hegemonic order. Those who control our politics have not been subject to the same type of discrimination as those who are fighting for equal rights. Heterosexuality has always been dominant, therefore heterosexuals have never had to know what it's like to suffer discrimination for their orientation. How would heterosexuals react to a straight marriage ban? Not very well, I would think. I think that would cause a major uproar, possibly even uprisings. Why, then, is it acceptable to treat homosexuals in this manner when most heterosexuals probably can't even fathom the possibility of a straight marriage ban, much less accept it? Is there any good reason why homosexuals cannot be treated with the same basic civil rights that every heterosexual expects to be garunteed to them?
This is not even about public ceremonies or openess about homosexuality. Homosexuals still have commitment ceremonies, they still live together openly, and they might even have a minister preside over the ceremony whether there's any official power in his words or not. This is not about public exposure, this is about status under the law. Homosexuals cannot file joint returns, they cannot be co-head of a household, they cannot legally enjoy the benefits that every other American couple takes for granted, including, in some states, raising a child. This is not socially ostracising them, nor is it limiting their right to express themselves as they please for the supposed sake of the children [cue Helen Lovejoy]. This is simply legal discrimination. It is saying that because of their orientation, homosexuals cannot be considered equal under U.S. law. There is no good excuse for it. If heterosexual couples were told that they couldn't raise a child, would they stand for it? No. If they were told that they wouldn't be entitled to having a marital tax status or couldn't name their partner as a benefactor, would they stand for it? No. Anyone suggesting something like that would probably have to fear for their life, so why it is considered not only accpetable but commonplace to advocate similar positions in regards to homosexuals? If you would never in your entire lifetime consider it alright for others to treat you a certain way, can you possibly justify treating others the same way? No, you cannot.
No comments:
Post a Comment