The Last Best Hope of Earth?

in ,

“The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line,” W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk (1903). Du Bois wrote that line 113 years ago to demonstrate that Black lives matter. Well into the 21st century, how far have we come?

In the wake of Dallas and Minnesota and Louisiana, I believe we can still become what Lincoln called “the last best hope of earth” – a far nobler ideal than to make America great again.

I believe it because the language of equality is in our DNA. And although we have lived a lie – exterminating Native Americans, enslaving Africans, abusing immigrant laborers, imprisoning our people – we have never abandoned the language of our American creed. And while that makes us exceptional hypocrites, it also gives us the foundation for joining together.

We have said it over and over again.

John Winthrop said it in 1630: “For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”

Thomas Jefferson said it in 1776: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Abraham Lincoln said it in 1863: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Martin Luther King, Jr. said it in 1963: “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’"

Barack Obama said it in 2009: “The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”

How many times do we have to say it before we make it come true?

Radical Islamist Christian Judaic Terror

in

Radical Islamist Terror. Why won’t Barack Obama say those three words? His failure to do so, I read, is why we are forever vulnerable to attack from radical Islamic terrorists. And his failure to do so keeps alive all the whispered conspiracy theories about his background, his motivations, his true beliefs. It’s clear that many of the terror groups with whom the U.S. is engaged are driven at least in part by their Islamic identity. Scott Atran, a French and American anthropologist and a leading authority on terrorism, contends that, however brutal and repugnant ISIS is to us and most Muslims, it speaks directly to people who “yearn for the revival of a Muslim Caliphate and the end to a nation-state order the Great Powers invented and imposed.”

But, he notes, “what inspires the most lethal terrorists in the world today is not so much the Koran or religious teachings as a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends.” Or, in the case of lone-wolf mass killers, an outlet for their murderous anger.

If Islam provides a rationale for terrorism, why not just say so? And then why not also say that the Baptist pastor who said from the pulpit that “the tragedy [of Orlando] is that more of them didn’t die” speaks for Christianity? Or the KKK practices Protestant terror? Or the Revolt, which seeks the creation of a Jewish kingdom based on religious laws and expulsion of all non-Jews from Israel, Jewish terrorism? After all, that’s what they are.

But it is also what they are not. These groups want us to believe they speak for their religions. But they don’t, and Obama is right to say so.

The Language of an Empty Suit

in

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

A lot of the attacks on Donald Trump miss the point. By labeling him a racist, a misogynist, a nativist, they play into his strength, which is character assassination, and very few people can play that game like the presumptive Republican nominee.

Trump may well be all those things, and then again he may not. And that is the dangerous point. He is whatever he pleases to be, whatever he thinks will get him the most attention and the most adoration from his base. A racist? Don King endorsed me. A misogynist? “I’ve hired a lot of women for top jobs.” A nativist? “And you know, the Latinos love Trump and I love them.”

Most of us choose words to try to make our meaning clear. But Trump uses words that send a message and enable him to him to deny it at the same time – such his infamous description of Gonzalo Curiel, the U.S. District Judge overseeing two class-action lawsuits brought against the defunct Trump University: “The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great.”

Here is a sentence (it’s actually not a sentence, but never mind) that means nothing, can easily be denied (“I never said I believed”), and isn’t true (Judge Curiel was born in Indiana). Trump, the straight talker, attacks by innuendo – and we all know where he is going.

This is the language of demagoguery: "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

“Hoosier Hospitality”

in ,

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “What was intended as a message of inclusion . . . was interpreted as a message of exclusion,” said House Speaker Brian Bosma of Indiana’s misbegotten religious freedom law. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Who is kidding whom? What other reason was there to pass a law that fixes a problem that doesn’t exist? How exactly are Christians discriminated against in Indiana? It seems to me they run the place. The original bill said precisely what its drafters meant it to say – which was, Garrett Epps noted in The Atlantic, that for-profit businesses (1) have the same religious rights as individuals and churches and (2) are legally protected against private discrimination suits. When Democrats proposed an amendment clarifying that the bill did not permit discrimination, Epps wrote, the majority voted it down.

Then the commercial backlash set in, and everybody backpedaled, blaming language for obscuring their noble intentions and rushing to clarify their own carefully chosen words. Now the lawmakers are congratulating themselves for passing a law that neither condemns nor condones discrimination. Well done, Indiana.

Of course, not everyone’s pleased. “Homosexual Zealots to Christians in Indiana: Back to the Plantation” blares the American Family Association’s website.

Meanwhile, Indiana just convicted a woman from a conservative Hindu family for botching her own abortion and then seeking medical help. The charge was “feticide;” the sentence 20 years.

Words Matter

in ,

American politics has always been rough, far more so in the early days of the Republic, when Congressmen routinely carried guns to work and often threatened to use them. Open violence reached its zenith in 1856 with Congressman Preston Brooks’ near-fatal caning of Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, a beating from which Sumner never fully recovered. Still, it’s been a while since a candidate felt he could reach for a gun and, at least rhetorically, threaten the president, as Todd Staples did in his “Come and Take It” ad during his campaign for lieutenant governor of Texas. But then, we’ve never had a black president before. Bigotry is rarely on overt appeal in the increasingly personal attacks on President Obama, but as a friend of mine, who is also a judge, said, “you don’t have to scratch very deep” before you get to the issue of race. Similarly, historians long denied that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, pointing to all kinds of other explanations – from Northern industrial expansion to the South’s embrace of a pastoral way of life to the preservation of the union – in an effort to refute the importance of race in the most critical event in our history. But it’s hard to imagine the war without slavery or to overstate the role of brutal language and imagery in any discussion of race in America. I believe absolutely in free speech, but I find the escalation of violent rhetoric a deeply worrisome thing.

Pregnant Corporation Seeks Maternity Leave

in

Another case on the constitutional rights of corporations is heading for the Supreme Court. In its 2010 Citizens United decision, the Court banned limits on political contributions from corporations and labor unions, asserting that such spending constitutes free speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment to all persons. Never mind that corporations can’t talk, write, hold up protest signs or do any of the other things we normally associate with speech. They are nonetheless constitutionally entitled to spend their shareholders’ money to influence elections. But why stop at speech? What about the rest of the Bill of Rights? Sure enough, the Court will next decide whether the Constitution protects a corporation’s religious beliefs, now that the 10th Court of Appeals has applied “the First-Amendment logic of Citizens United” to uphold Hobby Lobby’s right to “religious expression.” Indeed, wrote Justice Harris Hartz, “A corporation exercising religious beliefs is not corrupting anyone.” Religious beliefs? Might Exxon believe in God? Can Google be baptized? We have entered an absurd semantic world, whose dangers are more than linguistic. “If thought can corrupt language,” wrote George Orwell in 1984, “language can also corrupt thought.”

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that’s all."

Next up for corporations: the Second Amendment.

Birdie Africa

in

Twenty-eight years ago, Michael Ward survived one of the most searing events in Philadelphia's history: the siege of the heavily armed MOVE compound at 6221 Osage Avenue, which ended when police dropped two bombs from a helicopter, obliterating three city blocks and killing 11 people. Ward, then named Birdie Africa, ran naked from the house, a malnourished, unloved, illiterate, horribly burned 13-year-old boy. A subsequent report excoriated Philadelphia, which became known as “the city that bombed itself.” Ward, who rarely discussed the misery of his early years, slowly recovered, graduated from high school, served in the army, became a long-haul trucker, married and had two children. He drowned last week in a hot tub on a Caribbean cruise ship named "Dream”. He was 41. “In a way, I’m glad it happened,” he once said of the bombing. “The only regret I have is about me being hurt and my mom dying and the other kids. I feel bad for the people who died, but I don’t have any anger toward anybody. See, I got out.”

When I first read that, I was stunned by the contrast between the drama of the event and the banality of the words to describe it. “The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts,” George Orwell wrote. But we also use language to blunt our memory of tragedy and to survive in the face of true horror. Each time I read Ward’s words, the more articulate they become. Rest in peace, Birdie Africa.