The Closing of the American Mind

[sheshe2]

A year and a half ago, I observed that President Obama “has brought us through the worst financial heartache since the Depression. He has brought us through incidents of shocking gun violence. He has brought us through racial discord sparked by those who so obviously killed Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner because they saw these men, subconsciously, as proxies for the President.”

Perhaps we should add the names of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile to that list: I’m not quite sure what else would motivate a man to, in essence, give someone the death penalty for selling CDs in a parking lot, or to blow away a cafeteria employee in front of his girlfriend and her four-year-old daughter. Hate is the only logical explanation for the deaths of Sterling and Castile, as well as the deaths of Dallas police officers Brent Thompson, Patrick Zamarripa, Michael Krol, Michael Smith, and Lorne Ahrens at the hands of a violent vigilante.

Sadly, our national healing won’t begin anytime soon, as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump continues with a campaign that would make George Wallace envious. (Don’t be fooled by his response to Dallas.) Earlier this year, I noted that Trump had obviously inspired an incident of intolerance in suburban Massachusetts that generated national headlines. Several months later, it’s apparent that Trump’s mendacity towards minorities still motivates the malevolent:

snip//

Well, thanks to Trump, “that kind of behavior” is America’s new normal.

Remember when former First Lady Rosalynn Carter said that President Reagan “makes us comfortable with our prejudices“? Trump has convinced far too many Americans that their prejudices aren’t really prejudices, that it’s normal and necessary to scorn African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, women, veterans and those with disabilities. He is Jesse Helms back from the grave.


Read More: http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/07/09/the-closing-of-the-american-mind/

Stop Trump.

[Stuart G]

1. Outstanding Post..and everyone here needs to follow those last two words...

Stop Trump........k and r.

[sheshe2]

5. Thank you, Stuart.

[malaise]

2. Yes!

Rec

[Photographer]

3. A big K&R.

[malthaussen]

4. What is "obvious" to Mr Tucker is not so obvious to me.

That Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, or Eric Garner were proxies for Mr Obama in the minds of their killers is an assertion that needs to be backed up with evidence.

Hatred, in general, I'd be more willing to stipulate, although fear (however grounded) might also play a role. But that fear might also be grounded in hate, although why the hate need be of Mr Obama in the White House is hardly a logical necessity. That Mr Trump and other opportunistic politicians are fuelling this hatred and fear would appear to me to be obvious, however, but Mr Tucker does not make that assertion.

"New normal" is also an assertion that needs to be backed up with evidence. That it has found voice is evident to anyone who scans the media; that it is supported by enough Americans to make it "normal" is something that would have to be proved.

-- Mal

[AntiBank]

6. agreed, that dodgy statement does a lot to deflate an otherwise really good article

It is the type of cheap pseudo-psychological rhetorical trick that adds fuel to the fire, not bring people closer.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. "New normal' is also an assertion that needs to be backed up with evidence"

I would posit that there is nothing "new" about it. It has always been the "norm", as it was baked into the founding documents of this country, and was reinforced by cases such as "Dred Scott v. Sandford", "Plessy v. Ferguson". "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke", & "Shelby County v. Holder" as examples. And this despite passage of the 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments, because now corporations are asserting the rights established in the Constitution including the 14th Amendment, while summarily doing everything they can to remove those rights from the very people who the amendments were established for.

[malthaussen]

9. A good point.

If the present racism were a "new normal," then Mr Tucker would have to show when it was not "normal." However, we can stipulate that institutional racism is no longer "normal," although Mr Tucker makes no assertion that it has become normal once again.

(It's an iffy stipulation, though, because what may be strictly unlawful might easily be winked at, even in an institutional setting. But I think some accommodation has been made to weaken institutional racism, as for instance with Jim Crow laws. But the recent gutting of the Voting Rights Act might be an indicator of a swing in the "new" direction)

-- Mal

[BumRushDaShow]

11. It is a cycle.

"Slavery --> Reconstruction --> Jim Crow --> Civil Rights era --> "New" Jim Crow --> ?"

[malthaussen]

15. I tend to be leery of cyclical explanations...

... although I'm not a big fan of Hegelian dialectic, either. History and society seem too muddy to me to be so neatly explained. Further, there is a certain determinism to cyclical explanations that leaves me cold. It is, however, an elegant model, and as a framework for discussion has much merit.

-- Mal

[BumRushDaShow]

22. As a trained scientist

(chemist)

"cycles" and repetitions are prolific in nature. This doesn't mean there aren't "variations" to each repetition based on the fact that so many variables can and will affect them. But the recognizable trends/patterns are there.

[malthaussen]

24. Sure, but you have to convincingly demonstrate...

... that physical laws also determine social interactions, which is a can of worms which has never been completely proved. We can go off on a little riff about free will and determinism and bell curves and mechanistic definitions of the brain, but in the end it all boils down to Idealism v Materialism, and that's a pretty well-travelled road. I like to say that all human behavior is subject to the tyranny of the bell-curve, but we have to also remember that, just as probability doesn't tell us diddly about what the next die-roll is going to be, the bell-curve doesn't tell us diddly about Jack.

-- Mal

[BumRushDaShow]

26. Yet humanity operates on the use of past experiences

to make future decisions as part of our survival instinct. I.e., we have to operate on "probabilities" (whether conscious or subconscious) to make decisions. And those "probabilities" will often cluster to form trends because certain experiences are not always "random" but predictable, given a certain (albeit the same) set of factors that tend to be "constants". This is not to say that 100 touches of what may be a "hot" stove can be compared to 100 flips of a coin that normally would have a 50% chance of resulting in 100 "heads" and 0 "tails" (or any other combination of heads/tails). It means that after perhaps a couple dozen burns, humans will tend to not keep touching the hot stove (reliance on past "experience", because it involves a "real" consequence that has now become a "constant" to them).

But introduction of one "variable" that seems to lead to the cycles (repeats), appears to be changes in "societal norms and expectations". So given a certain set of events that continue to lead to similar "predictable" outcomes, when you introduce the "change in society" variable, suddenly the "predictability" of the outcome changes (given the higher weight of an "active or engaged society" on humans based on our evolution), and a new trend often emerges.

Change that variable once more (i.e., give it less weight through a "laissez-faire or apathetic society&quot , then you begin to trend back to that earlier set of "predictable outcomes". Or in internet parlance - "Wash. Rinse. Repeat".

The "Idealism vs Materialism" that you mention is what gets baked into how society reacts during certain eras. But that doesn't mean that "society" itself isn't a catalyst for what can often be "repeatable" changes in what are still "predictable outcomes".

[malthaussen]

28. Predictable, but not determined.

However, I will freely confess that I am rather attached to the idea of Free Will, which is guaranteed (more-or-less) to make me react negatively when any deterministic model is mooted. The problem I have seen in the social sciences (which is my discipline) is the urge to treat models as laws, as inflexible, and to reduce questions to monocausal explanations. Of course, that's a great way to sell books and get a better job.

I used to be very fond of the idea of the physical universe reducing to simplicity, for its elegance. Quantum mechanics, however, has really thrown a monkey wrench into that idea, thanks to the multiplication of smaller and smaller particles. Hell, even the quark model was developed after I was born. Sometimes, I feel like Uncle Albert protesting "God does not play dice!" when he knows damned well god does.

-- Mal

[BumRushDaShow]

30. "the urge to treat models as laws"

Exactly. Bravo!

We don't know it all. Quantum mechanics is an obvious example (I had to take "Elementary Particle Physics" my junior year in college. ).

But (and there had to be a "but&quot in order to make sense of what is going on around us, we often have to create artificial constructs that appear (on their face) to bring some "order" in the "chaos", and that is what I think all of this is about. It helps to reconcile inconsistencies if a "majority" of the time, events fit that construct (making it "acceptable" to dismiss the inconsistencies), and we can "move on".

[malthaussen]

31. Sure, I do that all the time.

I have training in both a technical discipline (computer science), and a humanity (history). And I've always loved sci fi, so the idea of using the physical science and models to contribute to understanding complex social issues has always enchanted me. The result, unfortunately, is that I often drive both scientists and humanists crazy, because I have a foot in either camp but do not fully embrace the gestalt of either.

-- Mal

[BumRushDaShow]

32. Very reasonable

and I do the same!

(grew up in a household with a poli-sci/history major mom and a computer programmer dad).

[sheshe2]

12. Not sure you have been paying attention to politics...

in the last 7 1/2 years. Inauguration Day 2009, the GOP trolls scurried underground to plot Obama's demise. They went so far under that no human being could follow them to the depths they had descended. One term President! Why? Because they hated the thought of a black man, in what they perceived to be THEIR WHITE HOUSE!

He has received more death threats than any other President. He has been mocked, ridiculed and totally disrespected.

Joe Wilson. YOU LIE!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/joe.wilson/

He and his family have been compared to chimpanzees.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/colorado-gop-official-compares-obama-monkey

Papers please! 'They're shocked!' Obama mocks GOP establishment for handling of Trump
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/11/theyre-shocked-obama-mocks-gop-establishment-handling-trump/81670924/

If you can't process the Obama unprecedented hate of this President because he is a black man, then I can't help you, Mal.

I will leave you with this thought.

Conservatives Call For The Lynching of President Obama



There are iconic representations, whether in paintings and photographs, that embody an event or era that are easily identified by people even remotely familiar with history. For Americans, the painting of George Washington crossing the Delaware symbolizes the revolutionary war, and photographs of burning Navy vessels in Pearl Harbor represent America’s entrance into World War II, and images of burning crosses remind Americans of Ku Klux Klan racism. Another iconic image representing the racial animus prevalent in the southern United States is African American men and women hanging from trees as a result of lynching that portrays a dark period in America’s history. Recently a racist conservative Facebook group, ”America the next generation,” created a photo-shopped image of President Barack Obama with a hangman’s noose around his neck that represents the group’s racist hatred of the President.

The group put up the image of the President’s head pasted on former Iraqi President Sadam Hussein’s body just prior to his execution with the words, “the making of a national holiday,” that surely made the Ku Klux Klan proud. The group’s stock and trade is demeaning liberals and particularly President Obama and the image garnered high praise and support such as “it should be the fate of all Traitor to the United States” and that they hoped the lynching took place before New Year’s day. Some of the racists concluded that lynching the President would make him into a martyr and suggested that life in prison was a better sentence than lynching. Some people who saw the image spoke out against it only to face outrage and vitriolic rants including one member who warned that the group could “add a rope for them next to his” because they found the image offensive and condemned the idea of lynching the President.

The image was eventually taken down, but not because it represented KKK racism and hate, but because the group “respects our regular followers that requested us to remove the post with the noose around Obamas head; we will take the high road!” Allegedly, Facebook refused to remove the image because “it does not violate community standards” that portrays them as either mortified of offending racists using their platform, or in agreement that an African American serving as President deserves to be lynched. It is likely a combination of both because Facebook is notorious for banning users for posting pictures with a woman’s breast exposed, or including racially insensitive quotes in news’ articles. What was missing from the racist image is why the group wants to lynch the President they claimed would become a national holiday, but it is safe to conclude it is related to other conservatives who claim they are victims of “Obama tyranny;” a clever cover for “the President is not white.”

The overriding theme of all the conservative and Republican calls for revolution, rebellion, or assassinating this President is “tyranny,” but that cannot possibly be true when Republicans, conservative Christians, and groups associated with ALEC and the Koch brothers rule like tyrants since they lost the 2008 general election. If conservatives are so opposed to tyranny that they are ready to rebel and call for public lynchings, they should target their own champions in Congress, state legislatures, and conservative groups for tyrannical assaults on large segments of the population. However, the simple fact that they give Republican tyranny a pass is just further proof their opposition to President Obama is pure racial animus and nothing else.

More if you can bear it. http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/05/conservatives-call-lynching-president-obama.html

[malthaussen]

14. One shouldn't reason from the general to the specific.

That there is great hatred of a black man in the White House is not something I question. That this hatred inspired the specific incidents asserted is a different question, and would have to be grounded on specific evidence.

-- Mal

[sheshe2]

17. Well, you seem to know...

please enlighten us.


FYI...start with trickle down hate. Oh, wait. Never mind it has always been there. It has just escalated.

[malthaussen]

18. I beg your pardon?

I have no knowledge of what actuated the killings specified. I am not the Shadow. Nor, unless I am much mistaken, is Mr Tucker. Mr Tucker makes an assertion that he does not support with any evidence. To acknowledge this is not to claim possession of any evidence whatsoever.

-- Mal

[sheshe2]

19. LOL~

The Shadow.

[sheshe2]

20. Hey, Mal.

The festering boil of hatred did not start with Obama. That scary black man in the White House. That hate was there long before he took office.

It just festered and got worse. Black men die every dayum day. It has escalated since Obama took office. The NRA have done well here. Bless their black hearts, wait let me change that. I like black. So I change that to their dead hearts who will never feel one once of compassion for anyone's life. Tell yourself what you wish. It has escalated.

Ferguson.





Michael Brown

?w=640

Trayvon



***************

Erics Eyes

[malthaussen]

25. Indeed.

So, doesn't that cast some doubt on the assertion that the killers of Trayvon Martin, et al, thought of them "subconsciously" as proxies for Mr Obama? When the LAPD beat Rodney King within an inch of his life, Barack Obama was teaching constitutional law at Red University. Is there need to recite the endless litany of lynchings, beatings, miscarriages of justice, and oppression suffered by AA individuals before Barack Obama was even born? In a manner of speaking, calling Trayvon and the others "proxies" for Mr Obama is to diminish their memories. I don't think any such conjecture is called for, or necessary to the thesis Mr Tucker is propounding.

We can, though, agree with something implicit in describing these victims as "proxies:" their murders had nothing to do with them as individuals, and everything to do with the hatred and racial bigotry of their killers, none of whom have paid any penalty for their acts. But there is still a problem with Mr Tucker's thesis here, in contending that it is a "new norm." There is nothing new about it, and trying to link it with a hatred of a black man in the White House seems to me to be unnecessarily contrived, and ultimately unconvincing. But that the election of that black man to the White House, and his service with dignity and compassion in a trying situation (one unprecedented, we might say, although Mr Lincoln's election started a war) has certainly served to further inflame the sensibilities of those who were already unreasonably offended to begin with.

Put it this way: would Zimmerman have killed Trayvon if some other President had been sitting? Okay, it is a counter-factual question and furthermore requires some speculation as to the state of mind of the criminal Zimmerman. But if your instinctive response is "yes, he would," (as mine is), then the contention that Trayvon Martin was a proxy for Barack Obama fails, and Mr Tucker offers no evidence as to why the answer should be "no."

-- Mal

[Vattel]

27. I agree with you in the criticism of the article,

but you are also assuming without adequate evidence things about the killings in question. As I mentioned upthread, the DOJ report on Brown showed that the evidence indicated that the killing was self-defense and not criminal.

[malthaussen]

29. Different discussion.

I'm granting, arguendo, the thesis that the killings were criminal because their criminality has no bearing on the question of the thesis Mr Tucker is propounding. We could wrestle over that at leisure, but it really only amounts to arguing over whether this or that specific instance falls into a trend.

-- Mal

[Vattel]

33. okay, fair enough

[treestar]

8. K&R

Trump is dangerous at this time. Too many racists out there feeling like it's OK and they have excuses for it.

[judesedit]

10. The Dumbing Down of America

Please research this program implemented more than 50 years ago

[sheshe2]

13. Would you care to clarify?

You could easily post what you meant.

[sheshe2]

21. Crickets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[craigmatic]

16. This is going to sound terrible but I'll say it anyway. Americans are comfortable with

black people suffering and dying. Which is why there were 2 different reactions for the cops killing black people and one black guy killing cops even among so called liberals. I see why King said what he did about the white moderates.

[Vattel]

23. The author of the piece in question irresponsibly claims that

those who killed Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner "obviously" did so "because they saw these men, subconsciously, as proxies for the President.”

In the case of Brown, the DOJ report says that "the evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson after Brown turned around were in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment."