Though Fraught With Peril, Critical Race Theory Has Its Place

No doubt, how our racial history in the U.S. is taught is fraught with peril, but much of the reason it’s so perilous is because of the nature of that history. It has understandably resulted in some serious scars that are not easily or painlessly addressed. CRT at its core seeks to explore the role race has played in our society from its earliest days, and to explore to what extent race still plays a role in society today. 

Let me preface this by saying I do not like the term "white privilege." I think it is counterproductive in that it assumes a predestined outcome for whites that leads to resentment among those whites who do not feel so privileged. I also do not believe in white guilt, either that we should all feel it simply because we're white or because the mere fact of being white somehow makes us guilty. Those two factors are probably the greatest risk in the application of CRT in teaching U.S. history. Also, attempts to judge the founders who stated that all men are created equal - in my opinion, the most important idea ever to emanate from the mind of man - by today's standards because they did not interpret it the way we do today is a mistake because doing so fails to recognize both how revolutionary that idea was at the time, however narrow its scope, and the fact that we would not know the universal interpretation of that phrase today that includes ALL people, were it not for the flawed men who first put it to paper.

That said, we'd be wise to mind the adage that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We can think that won't happen, that we won't repeat some of the uglier chapters of our history, but that will only be assured through a combination of diligence and vigilance. Diligence in learning not just about, but from our history. Vigilance in watching for and fighting any embers of that history that might reignite into something far worse.

My personal journey regarding our racial history has been largely unintentional, reading books where race was often tangential to the main topic, but where it's role was revealing nonetheless.

The first of those books was Ron Chernow’s biography of Ulysses S, Grant, a book I read because I’d enjoyed Chernow’s bio of Hamilton (before it became a Broadway phenomenon). My preconceived notions of Grant were more than blown away, especially as I learned of his dedication to real reconstruction of the South and guaranteeing the rights of freed slaves. But more revealing was how little I knew of Reconstruction, which had been effectively limited during my school days to “carpetbaggers,” the so-called northern opportunists who swarmed the south seeking to profit from the societal upheaval and government intervention taking place there. So, to learn that during Grant’s presidency thousands of freed slaves had won elected office in the South, with a Black even being elected governor of Louisiana, came as a shock, as was learning of the impact of the original federal Civil Rights Act that preceded the 1964 CRA by nearly 100 years. To think how different things might be today had that early flourishing of equal rights not been extinguished is a lot to ponder. 

So the question arises, how was that early flourishing of civil rights crushed? Well, we all have some idea - the rise of the KKK and the implementation of separate, but equal laws that came to be known collectively as Jim Crow. But that turns out to be just part of the story. How those developments came to gain the upperhand is less well known. It began with the Compromise of 1877, which resolved the disputed election of 1876 (Bush/Gore was not the first time an election wasn’t decided on Election Day). Thrown into the House of Representatives when no Electoral majority could be reached, Democrats agreed to give the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in exchange for withdrawal of federal troops from the South. Those troops had been enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, thus protecting the rights of the now free Blacks. Into the vacuum created by the federal departure stepped the KKK, the deleterious effect of which we should all be familiar, and subsequently, Jim Crow. The question then arises as to why we (the U.S.) allowed this to happen.

Enter another book, “The Second Founding,” so-called because it details the passage and aftermath of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments in the wake of the Civil War - amendments that codified the founding value stated in our Declaration of Independence that all men (though not women, just yet) are created equal (note, women were strong supporters of these amendments as they saw common cause with Blacks in the quest for equality - but I digress). The most interesting, troubling and thought-provoking takeaway from this book is how those amendments were eventually used to give Constitutional cover to Jim Crow laws. In fact, the cases Plessy v Ferguson, which found “separate but equal” constitutional and Brown v The Board of Education, which found “separate but equal” unconstitutional, both were argued over the same question - do separate but equal amenities and institutions violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause? In the former, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled they did not, in the latter it found that they did. Consider that for a moment - the exact same amendment was interpreted such to deliver opinions 180 degrees at odds with each other. It speaks to how fragile our Constitutional protections are (Madison referred to them as mere parchment barriers against the willful tyranny of malevolent men) and how the only thing separating liberty from tyranny are the nine people sitting on the Supreme Court, and our willingness to accept the rule of law. It also highlights why we must learn from history so that we can avoid backsliding.

I think we all understand the significance of those nine justices, but (personal opinion here), I fear that the nearly single-minded focus on finding justices likely to overturn Roe v Wade unwittingly, but almost by default, drives us to favor justices likely to have a narrow or restrictive view of any rights that should be “reserved to the people.” We start to see this as the USSC weakens enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or cedes more power to government in seizing private property through eminent domain, where “public good” (e.g., higher tax revenue) has supplanted “public use” (eg, highways, dams, airports, etc.) as sufficient justification to seize private property. In fact, in Kelo v New London (Connecticut), the Supreme Court ruled that private property could be taken by eminent domain from one private property owner and given to another private property owner based solely upon the promise the new owner could provide a use that generates higher tax revenue. It is not an exciting topic, so we tend not to consider it much, but such a ruling puts every one of our homes or holdings at risk. We don’t worry about it much because most of us need not worry that our homes will be seized since we live in nice areas where there is little pressure to improve the neighborhood, so-to-speak, nor do we live where there is little land for new development, or if there is limited land, where the difference in tax revenue would make such seizure desirable, but such a ruling cedes tremendous power to the government at the expense of individual rights.

So how does this apply to race or CRT, one might ask. Enter another book, “The Power Broker,” Robert Caro’s 1974 tour de force biography of Robert Moses, New York’s almost dictatorial public works czar during much of the twentieth century who arguably became the most powerful unelected public official in U.S. history. Skilled in writing legislation and unabashed in using the power of his position to get such legislation introduced and passed by state legislators, he was able to use the Constitution’s wording on contract law to make himself a party to state and city bond issues, which are protected under contract law, thereby making his role inviolable in the execution of those bonds - bonds which he used to build parks, highways, bridges, tunnels and eventually, public housing. His use of eminent domain to make way for such projects time and again cleared out poor, but thriving communities that enjoyed low crime, steady employment and pervasive entrepreneurship. What took their place were often displaced communities forced into slums and/ or public housing, the latter which may have replaced the lost roofs over people’s heads, but not the foundation of local businesses and cultural touchpoints - bowling alleys, barbershops, funeral parlors, grocery stores or the front stoops and tree-lined streets - that make for a thriving community.  Most often, the communities taken via eminent domain were populated by people of color, including migrants from the Jim Crow South. It wasn’t until Moses proposed a cross-Manhattan freeway (I-78) through Greenwich Village that he finally met his match. And the reason he met his match is because he finally tried to move out connected, wealthy elites, almost exclusively white, who had the resources and wherewithal to fight him. Were such discrepancies in who got relocated and who did not driven by race? Perhaps not, but the outcome was definitely one where those most harmed were Blacks and others who could least afford it. Similar iniquities took place across the country, including Detroit’s Black Bottom neighborhood, Chicago’s south and west sides, and elsewhere. Even the conservative Federalist Society has weighed in against the sordid racial history regarding the use of eminent domain. It is not a partisan issue.

But, as the late, legendary Billy Mays would say, wait, there’s more. Those Blacks who had been forced out of their homes and communities thanks to eminent domain and urban renewal had often arrived in these northern cities in hopes of finding something better than the Jim Crow south, only to find they could often get work only by accepting wages lower than their white counterparts, putting them at a financial disadvantage in cities that were more expensive than those they had fled, while sparking animosity among whites who lost their jobs to the lower wage newcomers. Not only were their wages lower than those for whites, but rents were often higher because restrictions on where Blacks could live decreased available housing supply. As any Econ 101 student could predict, increased demand from the newly arrived migrants, coupled with limited housing supply for those same migrants led to inflated rents. Thus, these migrants faced lower wages, higher rents and racial animosity from their new hosts. This was made clear in the meticulously researched, matter-of-fact book, “The Warmth of Other Suns” about the Great Migration of southern Blacks to locales in the north and west.

But even as we attempted to make amends for these injustices and obstacles through affirmative action and diversity initiatives - and we have done a decent job for many - we replaced those obstacles with new ones in an effort to fight drugs and crime. One of the most egregious developments of the war on drugs was development of the “Drug Courier Profile.” If one wants to see the unequal application of such profiles, they need only note the demographics of those stopped and having their vehicles searched along I-75 north of I-275 in the area of southern Ohio where I live. I had noticed long ago that a preponderance of those so stopped were Black. Statistics show this to be more than anecdotal evidence. Drug courier profiles are so vague that traveling alone is a valid consideration, as is traveling with a partner. So is dressing poorly, or dressing well. Likewise, driving a luxury vehicle or driving a dilapidated car. Or driving a nondescript vehicle like a used Honda Accord. Two takeaways from the list of red flags is that ANY ONE of us could be guilty of fitting the drug courier profile at any time, and FEW OF US ever think about it. But there are many that do - because too often those criteria are simply a pretext for justifying a thorough search for reasons more nefarious (the problem runs much deeper and is far more insidious, as is described in "The New Jim Crow").

To which it is common to say, well, if you have nothing to hide, there’s nothing to worry about. To a degree, that’s true. But how many of us might have something to hide. A joint in the glovebox, an opioid in a purse, a gun under the seat? I know more than a few white folks who’ve been caught with these or more and been let go without incident. Is such street mercy applied equally?

I had a friend who dabbled in selling marijuana while in school. He once got a message that someone in a specific dorm had called asking about a purchase. This guy went door-to-door looking for the prospective buyer, prompting someone to call the cops, who came and arrested him. Yet, this son of a prominent Detroit advertising executive had all charges dropped. This same friend recently retired from a C-level job with a U.S. automaker. Contrast that with the unconnected Black kid living in Cincinnati's Avondale or Lower Price Hill neighborhoods who is trying to help pay the electric bill or put food on the table. Or the Black kid in college trying to make some extra spending money like my friend was. We may picture him as a street thug, but he is far more likely to be no more a threat to society than my friend, but that is not how the criminal justice system treats him. Instead, he is likely to get charged with the most severe crime permissible under the law, with the intent to draw a plea deal that leaves the kid with a jail sentence and a felony record (prosecutors tend to play numbers games, statistics they can use for future campaigns). In fact, Rudy Giuliani made exactly this point recently, inadvertently admitting this was the case while trying to portray the plea deal as leniency. It is no such thing. It is still a felony, and a felon is instantly behind the eight ball in trying to gain meaningful employment. A felon is barred from housing assistance. And since felons are barred from jury duty - and thanks to the proliferation of such drug sentences - they are far less likely to enjoy a jury of their peers that might understand how the system is stacked against them. They are also often precluded from voting, essentially making them non-citizens for crimes no different than that committed by my white C-suite friend. Their options are often reduced to menial jobs or a life of crime, which we then blame on the criminal, rather than a system stacked against him. What we can be sure of is that any chance of gaining a C-level role with a major employer is immediately and forever off the table.

All this feeds the stereotype that leads to unwarranted police shootings. I have witnessed the flip side of this in a way that really brought it home. I was pulled over at 5 AM just outside of Detroit a few years ago after taking a wrong turn while trying to get to the hospital before my 86 year-old father was going into surgery. Now, I’ve been stopped so many times I’ve lost count. Likewise, I’ve been let go more times than I can remember. Seriously. (I'd like to point out that I've counted at least 23 times I've been stopped, whereas my wife has been stopped once - just weeks after getting her license. It should be noted that discrepancy in NOT because the cops are out to get me. But I digress yet again). Anyway, I thought this was just another stop. But when I glanced in the rearview mirror, I saw the cop crouched low, hand on his holster, approaching wide to my left. He was clearly tense. Until he saw my face. As soon as I leaned out, he visibly relaxed, standing upright, taking his hand off his gun and approaching me directly. Clearly, he did not see a 57 year-old white male as a threat. All very understandable.

But let’s consider the bioscience of what had just taken place. The cop’s stress hormones were clearly elevated. It is easy to imagine his heart rate rising, his palms and back of his neck sweating and his mind racing. He is in fight-or-flight mode, which shuts off the rational mind and turns on the instinctive, reactive one. All that changed as soon as he saw me. It is easy to understand and imagine the wave of relief that washed over him (put yourself in his position and consider the relief - I bet you can feel it). But what if instead of being a 57 year-old white guy, I’d been a 27 year-old white guy. Or worse, a 27 year-old black guy. Not only do those stress hormones remain elevated, but I am not likely to be as relaxed as I was. It is easy to see how a simple traffic stop can escalate to something much worse. And too often, it does. Again, we may say, well there’s a reason the cop was nervous because of the circumstances, but too often we stop considering the circumstances beyond the culture of crime in our cities, ignoring the societal obstacles listed above that have created that culture - and too many are considered suspect under conditions similar to this one, whether they are guilty or not, simply because of how they look. I could have had a joint or gun in my car, but I got let go (I didn't). But is everyone afforded such grace based on appearance and demeanor?

So this is where things are. Most of us live rather innocuous lives unfettered by the realities so many face. Yet, even those Blacks who seem to have made it suffer from the daily uncertainty that comes with not knowing if the invitation to golf with the boss that you failed to receive was an oversight or something else. If the fact the people who arrived at the restaurant after you,  but got seated before you was a mistake or something else. If the Confederate flag flying at the house just around the corner simply represents a good ol’ boy or something darker. And they still worry every time lights go on in the police car behind them in ways most of us never do.  It all leads to a form of PTSD, which can be triggered - yes, triggered is the proper term to describe how stress hormones are activated - by what most of us consider insignificant.

To combat this, it is up not to those who suffer the indignities, but those of us who do not. Otherwise, it could be much worse. Returning to “The Warmth of Other Suns,” there was a passage that was almost a throwaway. It involved one of the migrants profiled returning from L.A. to his hometown of Monroe, Louisiana, where he decides to eat at a diner that just a few years earlier had once been Whites Only. The experience is so unremarkable that it leaves him wondering how something so mundane - a black man eating in a restaurant - could have generated so much anger and hatred that not that long before it could have gotten him killed. 

That vignette haunted me for several days. How, indeed, I wondered. But then I saw a news report of a rally where the president of the United States - the person charged with defending the U.S. Constitution and the rights of all protected by it - stood by for seventeen seconds without even attempting to silence a crowd as they chanted “Send Her Back!” Suddenly, I realized how it could happen. As Jonathan Haidt described in his 2012 book, “The Righteous Mind,” fight songs, uniforms, flags and yes, rhythmic chants all lead to more fervent binding of those involved. They are essential in creating emotional bonds that can cloud judgment and create unthinking devotion to a cause. They are the source of what’s known as the madness of crowds. It is what makes otherwise good people participate in everything from public lynchings to the Holocaust. And I realized it is a fairly straight line from “Build The Wall!” through “Send Her Back” to “String Them Up!” And “string them up” is what that returning southern Black was remembering at that diner as he considered how fragile his - and our - liberties really are. We may snicker and get a kick out of such chants, but to others they are rightfully terrifying. We need to be able to understand that, and why. Furthermore, it is our duty to stop them in their tracks.

There were more than 4,000 lynchings across the U.S. from 1880 to 1920, yet attempts to pass a federal anti-lynching law was politically untenable until the late 1940s for fear of upsetting white southerners. We are not that far removed from Jim Crow or the hate-filled violence that accompanied it. Claims it can't happen here are misguided because it already has. It is up to us to make sure it doesn't again. That's why learning our history, in all its gory details, is so critical.

Slavery, segregation, voter suppression, eminent domain, forced relocation, simple traffic stops, unequal application of the law, angry chants and the madness of crowds - all things we whites rarely, if ever have to worry about, but which are a daily source of anguish for so many. Anguish that impacts the health, safety and economic well-being of millions of our fellow American citizens today, just as it has since they first arrived on these shores in 1619. 

And for all our progress, the system still works to oppress. Consider how so many like to make the case we are a republic, not a democracy. This argument is often used to justify the electoral college and Senate representation, where there is unequal representation. However, it ignores the real aim of a republic, which is to ensure that all interests are represented, even those in the minority. By that measure, we fail miserably. In an ideal republic, all groups and classes would feel fairly represented, be it business or labor, rich or poor, Black or White, but thanks to gerrymandering and our archaic method of ensuring senate representation - itself a remnant of our desire to placate slaveholding states - many groups are not represented as they should be.

Consider Ohio. In the 2018 election, Republicans earned a slim majority of the vote for US congressional seats, 52 percent to 47.3 percent for Democrats (0.7% went to third party candidates), yet because of how districts are drawn, the GOP won 12 seats, the Democrats only 4, an unrepresentative 75-25 split. We can take pleasure in “our side's” bonanza, but at what cost to confidence in our system of self-governance. Let us not forget that our ancestors' rallying cry against the British was “No taxation without representation!” Why should we not think that people who have suffered the indignities, the inequities, the injustices outlined above would not someday take up a similar cry? That is the real threat to our democracy, to our liberty, to our republic. We ignore it at our own peril.

Ours is a history I had really not considered in full, largely because I was unaware it existed, or because it did not impact me, how would I even know to care?

Well, that is what Critical Race Theory seeks to address. Yes, how it is taught could simply replace one resentment with another. But if done properly, it could be the transformative change we need. 

So, what would make the latter true? I figured the best place to see how awful the teaching of CRT might be would be to look at likely offenders, so I sought out several very liberal U.S. history professors to see how they would teach it. Heather Cox Richardson, who many would view as a liberal U.S. history professor put my fears to rest, while describing it perfectly. She teaches that the U.S proclaimed that all men are created equal, like a company that posts a set of values on the wall but fails to live up to them. But then, like employees who point to those values posted on the wall, the people decided to hold the nation accountable and force it to live by its own stated principles. She said that in doing so, we made that creed about us. About we, the people. And that is how the government Lincoln described at Gettysburg - a government of, by and for the people - is supposed to work. It is the American experiment working as it should, in all its glory.

We are not only strong enough to face our truths, but we can and will be all the stronger for doing so. That is the promise of Critical Race Theory. Instead of repeating mantras spewed by ratings-hungry demagogues about Marxism and the downfall of America, we would be better served by engaging in real dialog to ensure productive application of CRT so that we can begin to understand, appreciate and address injustices large and small that so few of us even realize exist. Had we done so long ago, we would not be having this conversation today.

With that, I am out. Happy to share many more reading recommendations. 

The Company We Keep is a Choice

I had a back-and-forth with the founder of our local Tea Party movement today. I've always seen him as a reasonable guy, and he has been a defender of the president, but not blindly so. He has said that those of us who have been critical of the president are responsible for his fervid support because we have made folks like him (my friend) angry with the accusations of racism. My response is that if one doesn't want to be tarred with a racist tag, stop associating with racists.

This is the decades-long GOP strategy come home to roost. Just as one who plays with matches will eventually get burned, so will one who consorts with racists eventually be identified as one. Most of us who were members, supporters or activists in the GOP knew that there was an ugly underbelly that we sought to keep under wraps, much like we try to keep the racist uncle from betraying his thoughts at family gatherings. Bob Dole addressed this cohort - what became known as Hillary's deplorables - when he told 1996 RNC attendees where the exits were if they refused to subscribe to the original ideals of the party of Lincoln. We've always known it's there, but we could finesse admitting its existence. Donald Trump put an end to that, forcing each of us to make a decision. Some chose to disassociate from the party completely. Others chose to stay. But instead of distancing themselves from that ugly underbelly, either by casting them off or calling them out, they ended up embracing them by embracing that term "Deplorable."

Now they want to cleanse themselves of any stain by association. Well, I'm sorry, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Actions, not words, are what matter. You make them leave the party, or you do. You cannot simultaneously hold the racists' hands and maintain your distance. But if you try, understand you will be judged. That judgment, I assure you, will be just as harsh as you fear it might be. That choice is yours.

Sorry for the rant.

A Primer on Guns and Freedom

This meme got me to thinking...

But in reality...

The Bolsheviks took over Russia, backed by armed peasants. Mao took over China, backed by armed peasants. Castro took over Cuba, backed by armed peasants. Ho Chi Minh took over Vietnam (and defeated the US), backed by armed peasants. Meanwhile... Communism ended in East Germany without a shot being fired. Communism ended in Poland without a shot being fired. Communism ended in Hungary without a shot being fired. Communism ended in Czechoslovakia without a shot being fired.

Even the fall of communism in the former Soviet Union took place with more whimper than shout (or shots).

This is typical of the simplistic and misleading argument linking guns and freedom. In fact, outside of the US, whose revolution was led by the greatest collection of intellectual elites ever to rebel against central authority (a foreign authority, I might add) one would be hard pressed to find a violent revolt by armed citizens that delivered more freedom than existed at the time of the revolt. The end of apartheid in South Africa, British colonial rule in India, the end of Jim Crow here in the US all came about through long and painful, but largely peaceful pressure to end suppression.

Bottom line, the argument that our guns will somehow secure liberty and democracy, especially in the oldest and most successful democracy on earth, is dangerously misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst. And meanwhile, tens of thousands of our fellow citizens die every year in deference to that lie.

Cancel Culture Threatens our Freedom and Safety

I know next to nothing about Gina Carano, either as an actress or of her political views, but entire college programs have been developed trying to understand how the Holocaust was made possible. From Auschwitz survivors like Max Frankl to noted scholars, it comes down to desensitizing the population to cruelty by dehumanizing an entire group. You refer to Jews (or Gypsys or Communists) as vermin, an infestation, snakes and the like, while blaming them for what ails society. As Frankl said in his book "Man's Search for Meaning," the Nazi death camps had only a handful of sadists who took actual pleasure in the torture and murder of prisoners, while the vast majority of guards had been "dulled by the number of years" that they'd been exposed to the dehumanization of their foes.

It is said, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It is instructive what the CEO of the parent company of Cambridge Analytica had to say about Donald Trump's tactics. Cambridge Analytica helped Steve Bannon field test things like "build the wall" and "lock her up," as well as more vile things like "Can Blacks succeed in American without the help of Whites" or "Are Blacks genetically predispositioned to fail?," seeking out people who would respond positively to such messages and suggestions. Not surprisingly, the CEO of Cambridge Analytica's parent company was later recorded saying that the tactics the Trump campaign used in 2016 were identical to those used by Hitler to turn Germany against the Jews.

Which brings me to Gina Carano. This is what she posted:

"Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers, but by their neighbors...even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”

The result of such desensitization, whether directed at Jews, Gypsies and Communists, or at Blacks, Muslims and socialists (and Mexicans, liberals and NeverTrump Republicans, or conservatives, Christians and white males) is to villify the opposition such that resisting becomes an act of courage, where those who act in defiance of the leader and in solidarity with the oppressed are treated as outcasts and enemies of the state. Below are a two images that show the horrors of such dehumanization, two images suggesting how such atrocities are made possible, and finally, two photos showing how standing against the hatred is an act of courage. I would argue that what Gina Carano was warning us of, is that we risk following the path that Germany followed. We should not - must not - ignore history. It is why our founding fathers felt freedom of speech, the press, and to protest were so vital that they placed them first among our Bill of Rights. What has been done to Gina Carano via cancel culture, while fully defensible from a legal standpoint (she was fired by a private company) is so misguided. I don't know if the hatred against political opponents she decried was against liberals or conservatives, but she is correct in her assertion as to the potentially tragic outcome ignoring her warning could bring about. She wasn't saying that where we are is just like Holocaust, she was saying what we are now witnessing is akin to what transpired in Germany that made the Holocaust possible. It is an accurate and critical distinction.

Please tell me where I am wrong in that belief.

Nazi Germany

America

Nazi Paramilitary

American Paramilitary

German Outcast

American Outcast

The Poisoning of the Conservative Mind

I have referenced my time on the Butler County GOP central committee as the penultimate straw in my growing disgust with the Republican party (Donald Trump was the final straw). When I was approached about running, it was by a good friend who suggested it as part of a group seeking to repair the party. This was in 2010, just as the Tea Party was beginning to take root. I saw that movement nationally, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, as one growing out of misplaced and misguided anger at the response needed to avoid financial calamity. Misplaced, because the real anger should have been directed at the lasseiz-faire policies that created the environment that made those bailouts necessary. Misguided, because it stirred up a lot of anger that should not have been stirred in the first place.

One of the people in the group that approached me, Ann Becker, is referenced in this piece. I was shocked when I found she was overtly campaigning for Trump in 2016. I was also shocked to find others in that group, including the person who approached me, supporting him as well. 

In her book, "Twilight of Democracy," conservative writer Anne Applebaum describes the rift in the GOP that began somewhere in the mid-2000s. I can trace my own disillusion back to that period. What you had were two wings that had been battling behind the scenes for decades - the nationalist wing, led by folks like Pat Buchanan, and, for lack of a better term, the limited government wing represented by Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp and the like. One was backward looking, the other forward looking. Somewhere post-9/11, those wings began to diverge. The latter, which included people like George Will, William Kristol, Anne Applebaum, Mitt Romney and John McCain became outcasts - RINOs in conformity-enforcing terminology. The others, including folks like Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Joe Digenova and their cast of burn-it-all-down flamethrowers like Jim Jordan, Louis Gohmert and Josh Hawley delivered us the GOP of Donald Trump. It proudly proclaims to be the party of God, guns and Trump. That is not a governing philosophy by any stretch, but that is what they live by.

The article linked above shows how that mindset not only lives, but is thriving at the grassroots level. Too many are oblivious to it, but if not reversed, it will be our downfall. I believed that in 1992, when I wrote against Pat Buchanan's nationalist rantings. I believed it in 2004 when I wrote the GOP faced a coming rift between the chamber of commerce limited government sorts and the "do as I believe you should do" religious right. I believed it in 2008 when I wrote that the GOP had stopped being the party of limited government and self-reliance, choosing instead to celebrate limited thought and self aggrandizement. And I believed it in 2010 when I ran and won a seat on the county GOP central committee in an attempt to correct the party's course. But it was already running off the rails. I am convinced that it can no longer be righted. It must crash or we will all suffer.

My Agenda for America

I hope to flesh these out in the coming days and weeks, but for now, a simple agenda.

1) Decouple health insurance from employment

2) Preserve the environment

3) Enhance custodial responsibility for gun owners, buyers and sellers

4) Reform and demilitarize the police

5) Reform immigration, including a path to citizenship or legal status for those productively entrenched here.

6) Educate our populace for a 21st century world, including critical thinking skills

7) Restore a balance of power between business and workers

8) Reduce the deficit, with higher taxes on the table

9) Ensure the voting rights of every legal voter.

10) Defend our rights and privacy from government and corporate overreach.

Related links:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/01/opinion/amazon-workers-union.html (#7)

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/ftc-proposes-rule-ban-noncompete-clauses-which-hurt-workers-harm-competition (#7)

The Kenosha Chaos Our Guns Have Wrought

Folks are sharing this NY Time timeline as evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. It will be up to the courts to sort that out, but it appears obvious that his possession of a gun is the source of his situation today. And the possession of guns by others did nothing to make a tense and tragic situation better. They only served to turn chaos into tragedy.

According to photos and video in the accompanying story, a gun was fired and Kyle Rittenhouse turned towards the sound. Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36 year-old father, then apparently moved toward Rittenhouse. It is certainly just speculation, but it is quite likely that in the confusion he believed Rittenhouse was the shooter because he had a rifle in his hands. Thus, Rosenbaum was possibly trying to disarm what he thought was an active shooter. He was shot in the head and killed by Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse then flees. One would expect he would be agitated and anxious, having just shot and killed someone (there is video elsewhere where he seems to be heard saying he had just shot someone). In any event, his adrenaline and fight or flight response are almost certainly high at this point, not a circumstance that is going to make for what we might call "good choices."

Meanwhile, the nearby crowd, having heard at least two gunshots and seeing one person with fatal injuries, is also certain to be in a highly agitated state. Others exercising their Second Amendment rights apparently pull out their guns, as multiple gunshots can then be heard. Whether they were in response to Rittenhouse's act, the first gunshot that had drawn Rittenhouse's and Rosenbaum's attention or just the general chaos is impossible to discern at this point, but those folks firing can be viewed no more, nor less justified than Rittenhouse at this point. In fact, it could be possible that they, too, were the subject of attacks from others who might have thought THEY were the source of the original gunshot and thus, active shooters in need of takedown, the only difference being their gunshots hit no one.

Amid all this chaos, Anthony Huber, a 26 year-old skateboarder, runs towards Rittenhouse, who bystanders are identifying as an active shooter. Rittenhouse trips and falls, at which point Huber appears to try to hit or tackle him. Rittenhouse, understandably agitated turns and begins firing blindly, killing Huber. He also shot Gaige Grosskreutz, who was holding a hand gun.  Grosskreutz was shot in the arm and ran off.

It is important to keep in mind that by this point, Rittenhouse has fired his gun repeatedly and killed two people. This is precisely the type of situation where the argument for concealed carry is often made - when the so-called good guy with a gun is needed to take out the bad guy with a gun. But in a chaotic scene like this, who is to decide who is good and who is bad? Herein lies the entire problem with our misplaced faith in guns to deliver peace, safety and freedom. They do not. They only deliver what we witnessed here, and apparently witnessed in Portland overnight as well - chaos and death.

Kyle Rittenhouse is no hero. He shot three people, killing two. If he was acting in self defense,  it was only because his gun appears to have made him the subject of suspicion when another gun went off. And we have no idea why that other gun went off (perhaps they were acting in self-defense as well). It is a simple case of armed insanity. This is what our fascination with firearms has wrought. And we can expect more of it. The cycle of insanity must stop. It is hard to see how it can. A good starting point would to begin seeing guns more as a problem than a solution.

We Ignore Disenfranchisement at Our Own Peril

At the end of his first live show after the lockdowns ended, Dave Chappelle closed by warning that if we don't begin to take the concerns being expressed by the George Flynn protesters seriously and act upon them, rather than simply paying them lip service, we risk an ugly progression of the frustration into something more than protests (the last words spoken were a drawn-out "rat-a-tat--tat---tat----tat"). It wasn't a threat, but a warning - a warning of what can happen when the oppressed and downtrodden feel ignored and powerless.

It is not just the violence against blacks and other people of color. It is the lack of a voice. It is troubling how many still dismiss the violence with an "all lives matter" retort, but the dismissal of systematic disenfranchisement is even more troubling. From the Electoral College to Senate representation to gerrymandering to outright efforts at voter suppression, the combination of institutional violence with an intentionally limited voice in the halls of power is a dangerous and combustible mix.

We are all aware that Donald Trump won the presidency despite being favored by 3 million fewer American citizens than was his opponent. But are we aware that in 2018, the Democrats received 59.3% of the votes for the US senate, yet LOST two seats? Granted, California's method of running the top two primary vote getters - both Democrats - skewed those results, but even absent that aberration, the Democrats still out-polled the GOP 55/45, yet are in the minority in the upper chamber of congress.

In the House, Ohio is instructive. As the table below shows, the GOP edged the Democrats in statewide voting by a slim 52 to 47.3 percent margin, yet the GOP won 12 seats to the Democrats' four, a 3 to 1 ratio. Regardless one's political views, it is foolhardy to think folks in a nation that claims its government is of, by and for the people will continue to quietly and peacefully acquiesce to non-representation.

Conservative commentator David Frum has stated that if conservatives become convinced they cannot win democratically that they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy. No true believer in America, no one who truly loves this country and what its ideals proclaim to be, can accept or support such an outcome.

Much is made of the United States being a republic rather than a democracy. But a republic is not defined as a system where the minority rules, as has become the case today, where an ever-shrinking number of voters rely upon archaic rules and nefarious means to maintain a grip on power. Instead, a republic is meant to provide all segments of the citizenry with representative government in the truest sense of the word - a government that is representative of the wishes of the governed. The further we stray from that truth and the longer we ignore it, the greater the strife this nation will suffer. And it will not be the fault of the aggrieved, but of those who choose to look the other way. Eventually the day will come where the couple in St. Louis will become a metaphor for the American ruling class - fearful, gun-toting citizens hiding behind gated walls of their own making. We owe it to both our forefathers and our children to be better citizens than what we've become. 

Paramilitary Groups Find Their Target in Michigan

Does anyone recall how the Michigan Militia gained notoriety after it was learned that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, co-conspirators in the Oklahoma City bombing, flirted with the organization in the 1990's? Michigan has long been home to numerous paramilitary groups, many with anti-government leanings. In 2010, Michigan was second only to Texas in such groups.

The rise of these groups parallels the evolution of the NRA from a sporting and gun safety advocate into a gun rights organization increasingly focused on the threat of an overbearing government intent on robbing the people of their rights. It should come as no surprise that Michigan, which long had more licensed hunters than any state in the nation, would follow the one-time sporting and gun safety group down the extremist, anti-government path.

We are now witnessing the next step in that evolution, with the armed protesters taking up position within the halls of the Michigan Capitol Building. This is one more example of the normalization of the anti-government mindset that drove McVeigh to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma City. In the twenty-five years since, these para-military groups have continued to grow (some would say fester), building their ranks on a foundation of fear and mistrust. As is so often true, one sees what one seeks, and in the case of these groups, what they've been seeking - expecting - is government overreach. The demands of public health in the face of COVID-19 provides the ideal opportunity to find such overreach and put their decades of paramilitary practice to work.

To date, these protests have remained thankfully peaceful, but as happened when a similar showing of paramilitary groups in Charlottesville drove state police to refrain from confrontation for fear of provoking violence, they risk allowing anarchy to rule in ways that leads to violence regardless.

The well-worn phrase that the pen is mightier than the sword underlies the reason that freedom of speech, press, assembly and the right to petition government for redress of grievances are enshrined in the First Amendment, coming before the right to bear arms in the second. It is also the well-educated, thoughtful intellectualism of the men who put those rights into our Constitution that made both our revolution against Great Britain and the nation that resulted a model for the world, rather than the inflamed mob Alexander Hamilton warned his contemporaries might arise when passions are fanned.

These so-called patriots believe an America flag and an AR-15 makes them Patriots. They do not. It is the hard work of rational thought, reasonable debate and defense of democratic principles that make a true patriot. Armed reactionaries wearing masks meant to conceal identity rather than protect public health are not patriots. It is hard to see them as anything but weekend warriors looking for a chance to play patriot. Unfortunately, they don't know the meaning of the word. Thus, our increasing tolerance of their unpatriotic acts threatens the very foundation of our democracy, and quite ironically, the liberties found therein. Their evolution, allowed to continue, will not end well. This, I fear, is but a mere way station on the path to a future we do not want.

Wealth Gap, Agitated Populace, 2nd Amendment a Volatile Mix

The last time we faced massive government spending that helped pull us out of an economic dive this deep was when WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression. We paid for that by increasing top tax rates to over 90 percent. It was a time when we took fiscal responsibility seriously (which coincided with our greatest period of middle class economic might and global respect). It will be interesting to see how we proceed this time once the need for stimulus has passed. I would not expect similar tax rates, but I do believe our current tax structure and faith in the myth that tax cuts pay for themselves will need to come to an end.

On a related note, I was pondering the oft-repeated claim that  prior to onset of COVID-19 we were in the greatest economic period in our nation's history. On a GDP and unemployment basis, there is some merit to that claim, but how does it stack up by other measures such as income inequality and overall measures of economic security of the middle class, including number of bankruptcies due to medical bills, ability to pay for a 4-year degree without incurring significant debt on a middle class income, retirement security? I've done some preliminary research and it is not quite as rosy as it's been portrayed, which should surprise few.

That such struggles were increasing, as are federal deficits, while the economy was humming on all cylinders should be a matter of concern for all regardless their income level. Sadly, I fear the IBGYBG (I'll be gone, you'll be gone) attitude that lured so many to dismiss the threat of the looming mortgage crisis a decade ago because they figured they'd cash out before the bill came due, has now become an IGMYGY attitude (I got mine, you'll get yours). It's a kind of Gadsden flag, don't tread on me approach to economics. However, history has rarely been kind to societies with vast wealth gaps.

The last time the US faced such inequality was during the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, which eventually saw the rise of the American Communist Party as a valid political player. Its appeal grew even greater with the onset of the Great Depression, which increased the calls for wealth distribution and overthrow of the old economic system. Ironically, Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by fighting fire with fire, implementing a vast array of socialist-style works programs, as well as Social Security, as part of his New Deal. They alleviated the pain of the Great Depression and quieted the most extreme calls for action, but it was only WWII (as noted at the opening of this post), which finally put an end to the economic hardship. Oddly, the real savior of capitalism may have been the man who started that war. We can only guess at how prolonged economic hardship would have played out had the war not intervened.

All this is to say that those who look the other way as income inequality grows without considering the long-term consequences risk fomenting a rebellion that the support of Bernie Sanders-style socialism only hints at. A return to the gilded age puts all at risk of becoming victims to the adage that hungry people gripe, starving people revolt. In a nation founded in rebellion, with a populace prone to agitation backed by Second Amendment rights, it will only take a skilled demagogue with the wrong message at the right time to light a fuse we may wish we had doused long before.