We Need a National Discussion on Race and Racism

We as a people have never had a conversation about race.  That is a sad fact.  Race and racism have of course been discussed by groups and between people, but we have never had a national discussion.  There has never been a national reconciliation about race and racism.  Not even after the Civil War. 

Given all the challenges we currently face stemming from confrontational polarized politics, it may seem like the wrong time to bring up this topic.  But nevertheless for the future health of our country and for the future wellbeing of the 12.7% of our population which is black, this discussion must take place.  And in order for it to take place, people need to have a clear understanding of the history of the African-American experience in this country.

Many books have been written on this topic, or at least with such a title.  Many of the books tell about all the contributions of African-Americans, whether it be in science, government, music, etc.  To me, these books seem to be trying to convince both whites and blacks that African-Americans deserve to be valued.  But this tact has not and will not change white America’s attitude because it does not address white feelings of difference, feelings of fear, or feelings of superiority.

Then there are books which very clearly and in great detail tell the facts about slavery, the civil war, emancipation, and the more recent past including of course the Civil Rights movement.  The most moving and insightful of the books that I have read was W.E.B. DuBois’ The Soul of Black Folk.  These books powerfully relate the injustice that African-Americans have as a group suffered over the centuries.

But surprisingly, none of the books that I have seen, except for books about African-American radicals like Malcolm X, provide a frank assessment of the lives of blacks, especially average blacks, in modern America.  How they are treated by white America.  

This is an essential part of waking America up and having the discussion we need to have.  For there is a general impression among many whites that African-Americans have been given so much preferential treatment and have so many rights that it is their fault if they are still living in poverty and ignorance.  According to a 2016 PEW report, 38% of whites feel that the country has made the changes needed to give blacks equal rights.

What follows is a very brief attempt to clearly outline the African-American experience in this country.

First of all, who were these people who became enslaved?  They were free people living normal lives, having various roles in their mostly rural communities, who were captured by either black or white slave traders.

In 1790, just after the adoption of the Constitution, there were 680,000 black slaves (19% of the population) and 58,000 black freemen.  By the outbreak of the Civil War, there were 1.8 million black slaves (approximately 12% of the population) and 360,000 black freemen.  The vast majority were plantation slaves and their life was toil, fear, and degradation.  They were the property of their owners and could be used, bought, sold, and killed at the whim of their owners.

After the Civil War, after emancipation, there was a brief period in the South where some blacks started coming into their own, owning land and attaining political office, but that quickly changed as the Federal government supported the white power structure, Reconstruction ended, and the era of Jim Crow laws came into being.  While no longer slaves, blacks had no de facto rights and could be summarily punished or even lynched for offending the white power structure.  They were poor and downtrodden, with nowhere to go.  Their hopes that came with emancipation dashed.

In the North, the 13th Amendment didn’t really change the lives of blacks much, except in the border states of Maryland, West Virginia, and Kentucky where there had been substantial numbers of slaves.  Blacks in the North were mostly, with several well-known exceptions, looked down upon before and after emancipation by the general population.  It’s true that abolitionists didn’t think anyone should be a slave; it was immoral.  But like pro-life Evangelicals, they didn’t think much about what happens to the freed slave.  The assumption was that if you are free you can take care of yourself.

The Great Migration of blacks to the North that began in 1915 changed their lives in many ways and did open more opportunities, but they were mostly segregated in slums and had few opportunities beyond manual labor or service.  Their lives were certainly materially better than living in the South, but they were still a mostly uneducated, looked-down-upon class by white America.  The “American dream” was not available to them.

During the 20th century, a black middle class and professional class did grow that was able to materially partake of the “good life.”  But this accounted for a relatively small percentage of blacks.  Most were stuck in the ghetto living under terrible conditions and with only minimal educational opportunities.  In 1966, 41.8% of African-Americans were poor.  Life was still a dead end for many.

The Civil Rights movement brought more rights for African-Americans and improved the lives of many:  23% of blacks aged 25 and older had college degrees in 2016, 50% of black households had incomes over $43,000 in 2014.

But it did not substantially change the lives of many blacks.  While the poverty rate fell, 26% of blacks were still poor in 2014.  

So where do things stand today?  Regardless of the metric … income, education … black Americans still lag substantially behind white America.  College degrees: 23% blacks v 36% whites.  Median household income:  $43,000 blacks v $72,000 whites.  Poverty rate:  26% blacks v 10% whites.   Unemployment:  10.3% blacks v 4.5% whites.  One statistic makes the stubbornness of this inequality despite improvement very clear:  median black household income today, while almost twice as high as in 1967, is just what white household income was back in 1967.

Putting aside material advancement, which is undeniable, the Rights movement did not much change the attitude of white Americans towards black Americans.  Discrimination is still pervasive although often less obvious.  Thus even if one has “made it,” blacks are still conscious of their unequal standing in the eyes of whites.  According to the 2016 PEW report noted above, only 8% of blacks think that the country has made the changes necessary to give blacks equal rights, while 43% think that the country will never back the necessary changes,

Even before the empowerment of the ALT-right movement by the Trump administration, discrimination against blacks and a feeling that blacks are not as smart or good as whites, or were “different,” was endemic in America.  Republicans even want to take away their vote whenever possible.  While surveys show that whites generally approve of the principle of racial equality today, when it comes to implementation in the workplace or schools, for example, less than 30% think the government should take action to insure equality.

Many whites, especially Republicans, and some blacks as well, place a large share of the blame of poverty and the lack of advancement on blacks themselves.  And to some extent this is true; for most people, education and advancement must be gone after, it’s not given to you.  

But after having been beaten down for generations, lower class blacks need to grow up in a culture that encourages you to have thoughts of education and advancement and provides the means to implement your thoughts.  Middle and upper class blacks go to schools and have role models that do that.  But lower class blacks live in a culture where neither their family and peers nor representatives of the government power structure they have contact with provide that encouragement or the means to implement.  For them, life experience makes it very difficult to imagine that their lives could be different.  A large new study of intergenerational effects on social  mobility makes this clear.

Now let me address the feelings of fear, of difference, of superiority that lie behind continuing racism, whether at a very low or aggressive level.  First of all, what is there to fear?   Even assuming that blacks would rise up in violent revolt, this is not the 1860s South where black slaves accounted for 38% of the population.  As to fear of individual black men, our fear is based on the knowledge that we have mistreated blacks and made many prone to violence.  If we treat blacks like human beings, then there would be no reason to fear.

It is true that African-Americans are different from WASPS and most other ethnic or racial groups in this country.  But then they are all different from each other.  At one time, that difference caused discrimination and even violence between groups.  But we’ve gotten over that for the most part.   The time has come to get over that regarding blacks as well.

And as for superiority, if a group that has the advantages that white Americans have enjoyed for centuries doesn’t score better, have more degrees, and make more money there would be something amiss.  There is no inherent intelligence difference between the various races.  That canard of race “science” has long ago been debunked.  Give blacks the same social support and opportunity that whites have enjoyed since the Civil War and in time they will reach the level of education and income of whites.  There will always be blacks who are poor and uneducated, just like there will always be whites who are poor and uneducated.  It has nothing to do with race, it has mostly to do with opportunity,

The point of this short primer is that despite emancipation, despite all the laws that protect civil rights, despite integration, and despite the undeniable improvements in the material living standards of large numbers of blacks, most African-Americans have never realized the true fruits of freedom because they have never experienced equal opportunity in anything from the government or society at large.  Starting most importantly with equal opportunity in primary and secondary education.

They are still not truly free in a very important sense of the word.  We are still far away from Martin Luther King’s dream of one day all people being able to join hands and sing, “Free at last!  Free at last!  Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Joe Biden — 3 Strikes You’re Out!

Joe Biden is a good man, intelligent, experienced, and may have a very good chance of defeating Trump in 2020.  But he should not be the Democratic candidate for President in 2020.

There are at least three reasons why Joe Biden should not be President.  First, Joe Biden was not just against busing and affirmative action in the 60s and 70s, it’s the reason why.  He saw no reason why white people today should have to pay for the suffering of black Americans over the centuries.  “I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.”  

The language he used in opposition to civil rights would have done George Wallace proud.  Yes, he has become a strong supporters of civil rights and allied himself with Barack Obama.  But in between he was also a tough on crime Democrat who said in 1990, “One of my objectives, quite frankly, is to lock Willie Horton* up in jail.”   He was a proponent of legislation that led to the mass incarceration of black men.

Perhaps he has truly reformed.  But a man who so consistently appealed to the racial fears of middle-class white America should not be a Democratic candidate for President.

Second was his handling, as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of the confirmation hearings of Judge Thomas as Supreme Court Justice and the testimony of Anita Hill.  Just this past Tuesday, he said that he regretted that he “couldn’t” give her the kind of hearing she deserved.  How disingenuous.  He certainly could have had he wanted to.  But he didn’t.  And perhaps even worse, he made the decision not to call other women who were waiting to testify regarding Judge Thomas’ sexual harassment.  It is thanks to Joe Biden that we are stuck with Clarence Thomas sitting on the Supreme Court.

Third, while there have always been some questions about his interactions with women, a former Nevada state legislator has come forward recently with an accusation of inappropriate touching.  Not groping, mind you, but nevertheless inappropriate, intimate touching.  “He leaned into me from behind, inhaling my hair, and kissing me on the back of my head.”  This was not an innocent peck on the cheek.  And this was not 30 years ago, this was in 2014.  

In response Biden said that “he did not believe he acted inappropriately,” but admitted he had made “expressions of affection” over the years.  Whether he then believed he acted inappropriately isn’t the question.  It’s whether he now admits that he did what was claimed and that in retrospect, by today’s standards, it was inappropriate.  That’s the answer that I would have wanted from Biden, but politicians rarely admit they made a mistake, even when caught.

We have to recognize now because of the #MeToo movement how frequently women have had to submit to such unwanted behavior by men with power.  It may not have been socially or politically incorrect at the time, but Joe Biden should have known better and been in greater control of himself.

Yes, Joe Biden might be able to win back the white middle-class vote.  But this is not the man who should be leading the Democratic Party and be President of the United States … certainly not at this moment of time.

* Willie Horton was a black convicted murderer who got a weekend furlough while Michael Dukakis was Governor of Massachusetts, didn’t return, and committed several crimes including rape before being arrested.  He was used by Republicans as an example of Dukakis being soft on crime during his 1988 presidential campaign.

The Mueller Report and the AG’s Decision

The long-awaited report has arrived and, at least as it’s been summarized by the Attorney General, Democrats are very disappointed.  

Regarding Russia’s interference in the election, Mueller found no collusion or coordination.  Given the information that has been made public over the course of the investigation, this is not a surprise, or should not be.  Knowledge of  Russia’s dirty tricks, and hoping to benefit from the dirt, is not the same as colluding or coordinating.

Regarding obstruction of justice, the Special Council declined to make a “prosecutorial” decision.  He has just presented evidence for and against.  Why he chose to not make a decision is beyond me.  

Without question, Trump acted to obstruct, he had the intent to obstruct, and it pertained to an ongoing proceeding, namely the investigation.  So it would seem that the Attorney General’s three requirements for prosecution were met.  One of course needs evidence to prove all three points, but just from Trump’s own Tweets, one would seem to have sufficient evidence on all three points.  

The fact that the report exonerated Trump and the campaign from collusion with Russia should not in any way impact the obstruction charge.  Perhaps most people would not try to obstruct a proceeding if they knew they were innocent.  But Trump is not most people.  He obviously was obsessed by this investigation.  The mere fact of it roiled him.  So not only should the exoneration on collusion not be determinative regarding the obstruction charge, as the Attorney General said in his letter, it should really have no impact.

As for the Attorney General’s decision to make the decision his and say there wasn’t sufficient evidence, it is unseemly and reeks of politics.  Mueller, after months of deliberation, was very careful to say that while he wasn’t recommending a charge, the report did not exonerate the President regarding obstruction.  

Yet the Attorney General did just that, although actually what he said was that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to charge the President.  Now, insufficient evidence does not mean not guilty.  But for the public, and certainly for Trump’s supporters, that is a distinction without a difference.

Congress and the American people clearly need to see the entire report.

Medicare for All or Some?

Progressives are pushing the Democratic Party to embrace a universal single-payer health care system, what is being called Medicare For All.  But is that the best way to proceed for the American people?

I am in favor of a universal single-payer system in the United States.  Where every person is covered, where there are no deductibles, where there are only reasonable copays.  

But there are serious problems with the attempt to pass a Medicare For All plan now.  How would the transition be handled?  What happens to all the insurance companies and their employees?  

And there is the fact that many people do not want to be forced to change the insurance they have now.  Obamacare had major shortcomings, so many are not confident about the government’s ability to run a plan.  Even most people on Medicare do not experience a government run plan.  They have a Medicare Advantage plan run by a private insurance company that beefs up the coverage provided by “pure” Medicare.

So I don’t think the ground work is there for a Medicare For All plan now.  Instead, I would suggest going back to Obama’s idea and have Medicare For All as an option in the insurance marketplace.  Let people choose.

At the same time, improve Obamacare by finding ways to reduce the horrendous deductibles and co-insurance that people who buy the lower cost plans have to pay.  Even with the maximum out-of-pocket built into these plans, a serious illness would bankrupt many a family.

This approach would do two things.  It would enable people to compare and choose the Medicare For All option.  The ability to choose is critical.  The second is that it would give lower income Americans who do not have employer plans more affordable health care, whether through the private option or the public option.  And it would not disrupt the lives of all the people who work in the insurance industry.

Donald Trump’s Thuggery

In a recent interview with Breitbart, as reported in various mainstream media, although interestingly not The New York Times or the Washington Post, Donald Trump stated the following. “I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump. I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough—until they go to a certain point and then it would be very bad, very bad.”

For whom would it be very bad?  The obvious answer is Trump’s opponents.  He’s made this kind of veiled threat before, but never quite this directly.  And as always, he removes himself from threat.  It is these supporters who would vent their anger on his opponents, with no direction from him.  He would hold himself absolutely clean, take no responsibility.

Breitbart has responded to this coverage by saying that there is nothing in this quote, or the context of it, which suggests violence.  It said Trump was talking about getting politically tough.

How disingenuous.  When he said that if his supporters get pushed past their breaking point it will be “very bad, very bad” he is clearly not talking about political revenge, he is talking about physical violence.

This is thuggery.  It may not be a crime.  He is not inciting violence.  But it is a threat; another kind of obstruction of justice.  He is telling the opposition that if he gets impeached or if he is voted out of office in 2020, perhaps even if the impeachment process is formally started or investigations get too close, all hell will break loose. 

We have already had incidents of Trump supporters going after opponents.  And while Trump said in response that “we must never let political violence take root in America,”  he also said, referring to himself, “There’s no blame; there’s no anything.”  And he has never admonished his supporters not to resort to violence in support of him.  

Taken together with Michael Cohen’s sworn testimony that if Trump loses the 2020 election “there will never be a peaceful transition of power,” Trump’s comment must give pause. It must be taken seriously.

This is language we expect from a Hitler, a Mussolini, not from the President of the United States.  Even for Trump this is a new low.  This admittedly does not rise to the “high crimes and misdemeanors” required for impeachment.  But it’s far worse than “conduct unbecoming.”  He may not be inciting violence, as legally defined, which would be a high crime, but he is condoning it and thereby encouraging it.

Unfortunate Democratic Hubris

The new crop of Democratic progressives in the House scares me.  I am a liberal and a progressive.  But these new Reps have a huge chip on their shoulder.  Not surprising given the past two years of dealing with Donald Trump, but that’s no excuse, certainly not for someone who seeks to be a leader.  

They are arrogant and self-righteous.  They are in fact the mirror image of those on the Right they hold in contempt.  They throw out excoriating labels without thought for they see the opposition as cartoons, cardboard figures, all guilty of the worst of conspiracies to destroy our democracy.  As I said in my previous post, it smacks of McCarthyism on both sides.

They call things immoral which are not immoral, other than perhaps in the religious sense.  Immoral means something that does not conform to the pattern of ethical and social conduct accepted by a society.  Thus, for example, being filthy rich is certainly not immoral in our society.  Jesus may have said it was immoral to be rich, but modern-day Evangelical preachers certainly don’t say that, nor does our society.  In fact to be rich beyond one’s wildest dreams is an accepted goal or fantasy.

It is, however, unjust for someone to be a billionaire many times over or for a baseball player to get $330 million over 13 years, when many people in this country are dirt poor, when they do not have adequate medical care, where 1 in every 8 Americans cannot depend on having enough food on the table, where a large proportion of people live in substandard housing, where the middle class is no longer middle class but sinking into lower class, when young people either can’t get an advanced education because of the expense or they become saddled with huge debt, and the list goes on.

Thus progressives quite rightly propose various ways to tax the wealth of the extreme rich.  But “unjust” doesn’t have the self-righteous ring of “immoral.”  It doesn’t have the God-like condemnation of “immoral.”  

Likewise the other day when a Republican used as an example a black appointee of Trump’s to prove that he wasn’t a racist … that was not a racist tactic.  It was a political tactic to evade the issue.  Whether the Representative is in fact a racist cannot be gleaned from this incident.  He was just supporting his President.  

Just like Representative Omar cannot be called an anti-semite because of her comments that AIPAC encourages people to pledge their allegiance to Israel or uses money to influence people.  She may in fact be anti-Semitic, but that can’t be gleaned from her statements.  

AIPAC, like all PACs, does gain influence by spreading money around; that’s the American way.  And there is a certain “Israel right or wrong” aspect to their posture which I don’t like and think is not in America’s best interest, but that does not equate with pledging your allegiance to Israel.  

Basically, she’s an American muslim who supports the Palestinian cause.  That’s not being an anti-semite or racist, that’s a political position.  She is, however, immature and does not choose her words carefully, nor when called on them does she back down.  She seems intoxicated by the publicity she is reaping.  

In fact, Omar is also guilty of the same thing she accuses Israel’s supporters of … blind support.  She has never criticized, as far as I can tell, the Palestinian elected leadership, not Arafat who for decades was a disaster for the Palestinian people, nor the current PLO or Hamas.  I on the other hand am an American Jew who in general supports the Palestinian cause but I also have lots of criticism for the Palestinian leaders as well as Israel.

We are living in a time when the number of people who are willing to give opponents the benefit of the doubt regarding their humanity, their good faith, seem to be in the minority.  People who try to be objective.  Whether on the left or the right, there is such a loathing for people on the other side (often even in their own Party), a feeling that they are beyond contempt, worthless, that it is hard to see how we as a nation are going to heal and get back to the point where, as the legal phrase goes, people agree to disagree.

It is a sad state of affairs for the country that for most of its history, regardless its flaws, has been the guiding light of democracy for the rest of the world.  The country of the Bill of Rights, of freedom of expression.  Of agreeing to disagree.

Criticizing Israel - Questioning One’s Loyalty

We have a real problem in this country when it comes to commenting negatively about Israel. Recently, Representative Ilhan Omar has come under intense criticism for her statements.

Her main target and the statement that got the most criticism dealt with the power of AIPAC.  While the way she phrased her comment, talking about promoting allegiance to a foreign country, was not accurate and unfortunate, her basic point about AIPAC and its power is well-taken.  

There is a difference between being anti-semitic and being against a particular government of Israel.  The latter has nothing inherently anti-Jewish about it. 

I say this as a Jew who while very supportive of the existence of Israel has been very critical of Israeli governments and policies regarding Palestinians for decades.  The current Israeli government has at times even called American Jews like myself anti-semitic because it’s an easy way to counter criticism.

It is unfortunate that some American supporters of Israel also invoke the anti-semitism label whenever someone criticizes the Israeli government, especially if someone is a Muslim.  Would they call someone anti-American if they criticize the policies of President Trump?

That said, once Rep. Omar was called on the fact that support, even strong support, for Israel by an American does not mean allegiance to Israel, she has refused to back down from her characterization of such support.  That is a mistake and shows a lack of maturity, not anti-semitism.

She may feel that such support is not in the best interests of the United States, and I would agree.  But reasonable people can disagree on what is in the best interests of our country.  I have no question that those who support Israel feel that is in the best interests of our country.  And that is the proper question.  The issue of allegiance is a red herring.  

Likewise, Republicans calling her anti-American because of her lack of support for Israel is nonsense.  Actually both her accusing supporters of Israel as having allegiance to Israel, and Republicans calling her anti-American because of her lack of support smacks of McCarthyism.  Questioning people’s loyalty to country is going down a very dark road.

Representative Omar may well be an anti-semite.  But that cannot be gleaned from the statements she has made.