April 10, 2007

The “Today” show’s Al Roker said Tuesday on his show’s official blog that it was time for Imus to go. “I, for one, am really tired of the diatribes, the ‘humor’ at others’ expense, the cruelty that passes for ‘funny,'” Roker said.


Giuliani 2008

February 19, 2007

In the past, now-near-Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has said the following:

“We don’t care about the root causes of terrorism. When you act in a way that kills innocent civilians, you have just excluded yourself from civilized countries.”

Amadou Diallou.

Of course, what Giuliani means when he says “you” is “non-white people” and when he says “innocent civilians” he means, mostly, “white people.”

Giuliani is a dangerous authoritarian. In addition to excusing the murder of an innocent man, he also excused the torture – and later led character smears of –  Abner Louima. His statements on terrorism show that this is all of a piece: that to his mind there are good people and bad, and that the bad deserve whatsoever the good decide to do to them. A funny kind of morality, but there you are.

Digby is right (as per usual) that Giuliani would be a perhaps uniquely dangerous successor to George W. Bush:

All that “unitary executive” power in the hands of a wingnut prosecutor with little respect for the bill of rights is a truly dangerous propect…

George W. Bush knew almost nothing of the world when he became President, and has managed to get the United States into two destabilizing wars (so far). Giuliani knows little about the world other than the fact that it is a place full of people who deserve to be punished – that it is made of “civilized” peoples and then those who are not “civilized” and who must be “excluded.”

This isn’t a man who should be President – especially not now.

On American Political Identity

December 11, 2006

In a recent column in the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson – one of the most prominent voices for labor and civil rights in mainstream American discourse – lets fly with both barrels on the issue of political identity:

…the Southern problem, it turns out, is really the Republicans’. They’ve become too Southern — too suffused with the knee-jerk militaristic, anti-scientific, dogmatically religious, and culturally, sexually and racially phobic attitudes of Dixie — to win friends and influence elections outside the South.

There was a time – there have been many times, in fact – when this sort of rhetoric was not uncommon in American discourse. But I only know this because I am a student of history – it has been quite some time since prominent voices were willing to so forthrightly speak of America’s “southern problem.” Meyerson, however, is not content to simply diagnose the specific policy manifestations of the Southern problem – he finishes his column by cutting right to the core:

So: A Southern low-wage labor system is cruising along until it seeks to expand outside its region and meets fierce opposition from higher-paid workers in the North. Does that suggest any earlier episode in American history? The past, as William Faulkner once wrote of the South, isn’t even past. And now the persistence of Southern identity has become a bigger problem for Republicans than it is for Democrats.

This is, I think it is fair to say, stunning. But it’s also encouraging. The more honest we can be about what the real issues are in our political discourse, the better.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of the commentary in response to Meyerson’s column – even among liberals who generally agree with the meta-message – tags him as painting with far too broad a brush. The Mahablog, however, seems to get it, and puts the column in the larger context of American identity.

The important thing to understand here is that essentialization is what a successful national politics is all about – and isn’t always a bad thing. Given the wide variation in day-to-day life among the citizens of any country nearly as large as the United States, it’s literally impossible to articulate a politics that addresses what even a plurality of citizens would independently identify as those issues most important to their lives. So mass political movements operate by using heuristics that they can count on voters unpacking in ways that make sense to them.

The Southern Strategy is an example of a particularly noxious set of heuristics; the terror-wrangling of the last few years is another. Until a month ago, these were quite successful heuristics (and one still works in Tennessee); but is there really any doubt that the “knee-jerk militaristic, anti-scientific, dogmatically religious, and culturally, sexually and racially phobic” shoe fits? And that it’s no longer so flattering a fashion?