Category: Uncategorized

Can Republicans romance Latinos?

·

By Alan Bean

Like many of you, I switched to a different network on election night whenever a commercial came along (I hate commercials as much as I hate political ads).  The talking heads on every station were sounding the same message: due to changing demographics, the Republican Party must reach out to minorities if it is serious about long-term survival.

Democrats won over 90% of the African American vote and close to three-quarters of the Hispanic vote (over 80% if non-Cuban Americans are excluded from the calculation).  And this after President Obama largely ignored the criminal justice system (a major problem for black voters) while presiding over the unprecedented mass deportation of undocumented residents.

Obama wins the minority vote (including 62% of the Asian electorate) by sitting back and letting Republicans be Republicans. (more…)

Why smart politicians talk gibberish

· 1 Comment ·

By Alan Bean

In a surprising eleventh-hour move, Michael Bloomberg has endorsed Barack Obama.  This doesn’t mean the New York mayor is happy with the president’s performance; but Obama’s tepid embrace of the global warming issue seems to have tipped the balance.  Bloomberg agrees with the Democrats on most social issues and generally sides with the Republicans when the conversation shifts to economics.

Until recently, Bloomberg has been critical of both Obama and Mitt Romney for substituting soundbites for a substantive discussion of the burning issues.  He was particularly enraged by the non-answers both candidates produced in the second debate when asked for their thoughts about assault weapons.  Bloomberg accused both men of talking “gibberish” because they feared the political consequences of addressing the issue honestly.

But the mayor should cut these guys a little slack, and so should we.  I have been extremely frustrated by Barack Obama’s policy response on a number of fronts.  He has avoided the distressing state of our criminal justice system, he refuses to issue pardons and grant commutations, and his policy of mass deportation is nothing short of disgusting. His handling of the economy has generally been sensible, but too many of the people who created the mess in the first place have been recruited to deal with its consequences.  We needed a new approach but, fearful of offending big donors on Wall Street, Obama stopped short of genuine reform and ended up offending the entitlement-addicted financial sector anyway.  He has talked a lot about green technology, but has been largely silent (especially during the current campaign) on the frightening issue of global warming.  All of this has been terribly disappointing.

That said, none of Obama’s moves have particularly surprised me.  The man is a politician, and that means his bottom line is re-election.  All the positions (or non-positions) I criticized in the last paragraph were based on shrewd political calculation.  Why tell the truth about assault weapons, mass incarceration, immigration and climate change when it would spell political disaster?

Left-leaning pundits have been appalled by Mitt Romney’s etch-a-sketch reinventions.  It is common, of course, for politicians to play to the base during the primary season, then shift to the center for the general election.  But this is normally a matter of emphasis and tone; rarely do you see a politician swap Tea Party convictions for the moderate middle, but that’s essentially what Mr. Romney has done.

The Economist, a British news magazine with a moderate social slant and a fondness for conservative economics, just released their own half-hearted endorsement of Barack Obama, largely for the same reasons Mr. Bloomberg stated.  Barack might be a bit liberal on economic issues, they say, but Mitt is too inconsistent to be taken seriously.

But why is the Republican candidate lurching from left to right and back again?  Because he must.  First, he had to toss the Tea Party a little “severe conservative” red meat; now he must assure center-right independents that he will do nothing crazy.  I doubt Romney derives pleasure from all this shape-shifting; but it’s his only path to electoral success.

In short, the two presidential candidates are unapologetically political.  And can you really blame them?  Mayor Bloomberg is New York mayor because his blend of Wall Street-friendly economic views and moderate-to-liberal social opinion is the perfect fit for his environment.  Did he adopt this mix of opinions in order to get elected?  Who knows?  But he owes his political success to his carefully selected mix of opinions.  If he had to dodge and obfuscate to stay in office, he’d do it.  You know he would, because he’s a politician.

Politicians are not free to speak their minds.  Neither are you and I, for that matter.  Most of us are ideological chameleons who take on the political hue of our surroundings.  Those who harbor dreams of social advancement, in business, religion, or politics, keep their political opinions to themselves.  When you run for president the stakes rise exponentially.

We would all like to vote for the woman who calls it like she sees it, the man who “tells it like it is” (as we used to say in the innocent 1960s); but in the political game, there is a name for people like that: losers.  By the time a politician is positioned to even think about higher office, the realities of the political world pretty much dictate the acceptable range of belief.  Way deep down, you are free to think what you will; but your public persona must adapt to the realities of the political marketplace.  It isn’t long before the way-down-deep part of you conforms to the political facade.  You get to choose your political party, but even that decision is largely dictated by circumstance.  Like virtually every other smart Democrat in Texas, Rick Perry switched sides–if he wanted to get elected, what was the alternative?

Eventually, the Republican stance on immigration issues will soften.  It has to.  For the time being, the GOP gains more from demagoguing the immigration issue than they would get from courting Latinos.  At least, that’s their political calculation.  As the political influence of Latinos rises, Republican candidates will adapt.  The alternative will be political suicide.

For the time being, Democrats can win minority support by positioning themselves just to the left of the Republicans, but as the red party shifts Romney-like to the center, Democrats will be forced to the left.  The blue team’s dilemma has always been to win minority votes without alienating too large a swath of the white majority.  Advocates who expect politicians to stand on principle will always be disappointed.  A few politicos have the luxury of taking principled stands–but the the honest brokers rarely wield real power.

If you were stranded on a desert island with Barack Obama or Mitt Romney you would be amazed by their subtlety and insight.  Relaxing under a palm tree, sipping the juice of the coconut, either man would say things you never thought you’d hear from a politician.  These are experienced world-travelers with Harvard educations and they’ve picked up a thing or two along the way.   But insert these guys into a political debate and ask them an honest question about gun control and you’ll get gibberish.  Every time.  They’re politicians; what else do you expect?

Can You Spare Some Compassion?

Aside · · 1 Comment ·

Image

By Pierre R. Berastain

I walked through the streets of New York City where incessant noises stand as the backdrop of everything that occurs. “You don’t know what it’s like to be homeless!” screamed a voice painfully, breaking the indistinctiveness of noises, “I hope it never happens to you! I am just hungry.” The woman was responding to a man who had berated her and her plead for money. He had shouted something degrading without looking at her and continued to walk undisturbed.

I hope it never happens to you. The words echoed in my mind as I walked down an entire block.

I hope it never happens to you.

The determined voice in my head insisted on a response, like a nightmare interrupting my sleep or a crying baby pleading for human warmth. I had just been confronted by the other, and that other engaged me with compassion rather than anger. She did not reproach me. She just wished me well. She had called me, named me, and demanded I turn around.

As I walked back to the woman, I recalled the homeless in Harvard Square. How often do we pretend to be busy on our cellphones so that we do not have to engage? How often have we heard, “Can you spare some change?” and avoided the gripping eyes of a person in need, pretending the words fell on inattentive ears? With our actions, the most visible humans in the streets become the most invisible ones in our hearts.

Yet, the woman in New York did not respond to this human neglect with anger; she responded with compassion. She extended it to the man, to me, to everyone around her. Where, I wondered, in the midst of her hunger, did she find the energy and love to show it? Sometimes, the ones who need compassion the most are the ones most willing to extend it.

“May I buy you something from this restaurant?” I asked.

I soon learned she could only have soup because she had lost all her teeth. I soon learned she had not always been homeless, that amidst economic struggles and distressing circumstances, she had lost everything and had no one to turn to. “We are a landscape of all we have seen,” once said Isamu Noguchi, Japanese American artist and architect. If we ignore those gripping eyes, what landscapes and narratives are we missing?

I am not suggesting we give money to all homeless individuals or that it is our duty to feed everyone around us. It is our response-ability, however, to recognize the humanity in others. The man did not have to say something disparaging to the woman. He could have simply looked at her and said, “I’m sorry.” We do not have to ignore a ‘good morning’ or ‘hello’ from homeless individuals. We can choose to smile and wish them a good day. Sometimes, recognizing the humanity in others is worth more than what money can buy.

Shelley recognized the man’s humanity — his vulnerability and the possibility of his homelessness — and she extended compassion. That Thursday afternoon, as I walked to the subway station, I wondered how much compassion Shelly would extend the rest of the day. And how much she would receive.

Originally posted on the Huffington Post.

Follow Pierre R. Berastaín on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pberast

Why Billy Graham is down with a Mormon president

· 2 Comments ·
Romney and the Grahams work things out

By Alan Bean

Evangelist Billy Graham has tacitly endorsed Mitt Romney’s presidential bid and his website no longer characterizes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) as a cult.  This is just another sign that a major realignment is underway in American religion.

Evangelicals defined themselves in opposition to Roman Catholicism until the late 1970s when activist-preachers like Francis Schaeffer and Jerry Falwell built a new evangelical coalition around an unreconstructed version of Catholic pro-life theology.  This informal evangelical-Catholic coalition was driven by a fear of liberalism in both its secular and religious expressions.

Throughout the 1970s few evangelicals gave much thought to the abortion issue.  In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention essentially endorsed Roe v. Wade at its annual conventions as late as 1976.  A decade later, a thoroughgoing pro-life position had become a litmus test among American evangelicals. (more…)

Declaration of Interdependence

·

Posted by Pierre Berastain

I recently came across this Call to Action video by Let it Ripple.  Given that my work centers around restorative justice, I found the clip particularly compelling.  What would it be to feel interconnected?  What change would it create in our communities?  The implications of interdependence and interconnectedness are powerful: it is a call to  LGBQ/T rights, children rights, a more humane immigration reform in our country.  To read the Declaration of Interdependence, please click here.

Harlem activist gets justice

· 3 Comments ·

By Alan Bean

Joseph “Jazz” Heyden, a Harlem activist accused of carrying a dangerous weapon (a miniature, souvenir Yankees bat) in his vehicle, got some very good news yesterday.  Jazz has been a vital part of a movement working to end the NYPD’s “stop and frisk” policy which is largely reserved for young men of color.  I should note that the attorney representing Mr. Heyden, Sarah Kunstler, is (a) the proud daughter of the famous civil rights attorney William Moses Kunstler, and (b) the co-producer (with her sister Emily) of an excellent documentary that became the foundation of the fight for justice in Tulia, Texas.

Jazz Heyden and his supporters have argued that the defendant’s car was pulled over by officers who had previously been filmed by Mr. Heyden out of a desire for retribution.  Although the DA’s office argues for the record that these claims are not supported by the facts, that should be interpreted as a face-saving gesture rather than a serious argument.

Weapons Charges Reduced for a Monitor of the Police

By KIA GREGORY

Prosecutors in Manhattan have agreed to reduce weapons charges against a Harlem community activist who was arrested after a traffic stop in his former neighborhood last year.

Around 9 p.m. on Dec. 2, the community activist, Joseph Hayden, was pulled over by the police near Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard and 132nd Street for a broken taillight. According to the criminal complaint, the officers searched his vehicle and found a wooden club and a switchblade.

Mr. Hayden, 71, known for filming videos of police interactions with the Harlem community, said the officers had stopped him in retaliation. Months before his arrest, he said, he had filmed and questioned the same officers as they conducted a vehicle search in the area.

Molly Brottmiller, an assistant district attorney, said in an appearance in Manhattan Criminal Court on Thursday that the office found “no merit to these claims” and had concluded through an investigation that the stop was lawful.

But prosecutors said that there were issues with the weapons. (more…)

Honoring the real Fannie Lou Hamer

· 1 Comment ·

fannie-lou-hamer-statue

By Alan Bean

A statue has been erected in the Ruleville, Mississippi home of civil rights legend Fannie Lou Hamer.  I have read several stories related to this event, and thus far not one of them mentions the ugly fact that Ms. Hamer, along with several companions, were beaten half to death in the Montgomery County Jail in June of 1963.

It is inspiring to learn that Fannie Lou Hamer’s gospel singing inspired a beleaguered handful of black sharecroppers to enter a courthouse in Indianola.  But the shameful side of the story is often passed over without comment.  It is shameful that courthouse personnel refused to allow Hamer and friends to register, as is the fact that she was summarily fired when she returned to her Sunflower County plantation, as is the fact that, later that night, someone fired a shotgun at the home in which Fannie Lou took refuge.

It is inspiring to imagine an intrepid Fannie Lou Hamer telling Hubert Humphrey that the Freedom Democrats of Mississippi didn’t come all the way to the Atlantic City Democratic Convention in 1964 “for no two votes”.  It is shameful that Lyndon Johnson, the civil rights president, called a press conference for the sole purpose of deflecting media attention away from Ms. Hamer’s testimony before the credentials committee.

But Fannie Lou got the best of the world’s most powerful man, a man who dismissed her as “that ignorant woman”.  Johnson feared, with good reason, that if the Mississippi Freedom Democrats were accepted as delegates in good standing, he would lose the support of Dixiecrat Senator James Eastland and white votes across the South.  Hamer’s testimony was so gripping that all three major networks featured her entire presentation on the evening news.  America was treated to a blow-by-blow account of the indignities Fannie Lou Hamer and her friends experienced at the courthouse in Indianola and the horrors she encountered in Montgomery County, Mississippi.  She left nothing to the imagination.

America was never the same.

I was pleased to see that the daughter of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers was present for unveiling of Fannie Lou’s statue.  The article failed to mention that Evers was assassinated while Hamer and her companions were being assaulted in Montgomery County.  Fannie Lou Hamer was an untutored woman with a courageous heart, a powerful singing voice, and a genius for grassroots organizing.  The price for changing America was steep, but Fannie Lou paid it in full.  God rest her soul.

Please click on the video and listen to the words that changed America.

Affirmative action and the traumatized twentieth

·

By Alan Bean

As this excellent article in Colorlines suggests, simple racial inequality has no bearing on the affirmative action debate, and for one simple reason:

 In order to argue that affirmative action is necessary to remedy past discrimination, schools would have to present evidence showing that they’ve previously discriminated against the groups they’re now going to great lengths to admit. Doing so would open them up to litigation from students of color who’d been denied.

With equity off the table, universities have only one legally acceptable argument: affirmative action creates a diverse student body and diversity is intrinsically beneficial to students. This argument makes sense to white administrators who would feel uncomfortable presiding over a homogeneous student body.  According to Colorlines: (more…)

Are we losing our religion?

· 3 Comments ·

By Alan Bean

“About 19.6 percent of Americans say they are ‘nothing in particular,’ agnostic or atheist, up from about 8 percent in 1990.” That statistic is from a report released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.  Most of the folks in the broad “None” category (68%) believe in a God of some kind; it’s just that they have no use for organized religion and don’t relate to any of the traditional religious labels.

And then there’s the surprising fact that the Unitarian Universalists grew nationwide by 15.8% in the past decade.  Who knew?

Meanwhile, Southern Baptists have been experiencing five straight years of membership decline and have now fallen below the magic 16 million figure they worked so hard to attain.

Overall, evangelical churches are still growing (albeit with less vigor than formerly) while old mainline Protestant denominations like the United Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians continue a half-century plunge in membership and cultural influence. In other words, we are seeing growth among those who define God and the godly life in explicit terms and among those who don’t want to nail anything down.

How do we account for the significant growth on the liberal end of the religious spectrum?  According to the WP acticle, the “none of the above” people

are strongly liberal on social issues, including abortion and same-sex marriage, but no different from the public overall and the religiously affiliated on their preference for a smaller government providing fewer services.  If they have an issue, it’s that they don’t believe religion and politics should mix.

The “Nones” celebrate the separation of church and state because the Religious Right has become such a dominant force within the Republican Party. Back in 1972, Dean Kelley argued that conservative churches are growing because they place strong doctrinal and behavioral demands on their members.  The liberal mainline was in decline because their “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” piety gave congregants little for the heart or the head to feed on. (more…)

Gramma Jesus, Jubillee theology and the New Jim Crow

· 6 Comments ·
Dr. Iva Carruthers

By Alan Bean

Yesterday, I spent eight hours listening to Texans talk about the impact of mass incarceration (more on that in a moment).  This morning I am sitting in a McDonald’s in Beaumont, Texas eating an Egg McMuffin and listening to the weather channel compete with FOX news.  I usually tell the young woman behind the counter (if, as is usually the case, she is African American) that FOX is insulting to our president and that upsets me.  But I don’t have the energy for that this morning.

I am in Beaumont to visit Ramsey Muniz, the Latino political leader serving a federal life sentence for his part in a non-existent narcotics conspiracy.   Normally, visitors are allowed to enter the visitor’s area at 8:30, but this morning we were told that we would have to wait three hours to see our loved ones because “we’re doing a fog count.”

It isn’t foggy in Beaumont.  Seasonably humid, perhaps, but you can see for miles in any direction.  The sign on the prison door says, “No visitation until 11:30.”  No, “we apologize for the inconvenience,” or “please accept our apology, but . . .”  This is prison, folks.

I informed the four twenty-something attendants in the visitation area that this kind of messaging combined with a totally unnecessary “fog count” constitutes an insult to the families who have come to visit.  They reacted as if I was being a smart-ass (which I was).  The rules are the rules.  Fog counts are very serious business.  Some inmate might wander off in the fog.  The fact that there is no fog this morning changes nothing.

So I got in my car and drove fifteen miles to this McDonald’s.  I can afford the $3.50 in gas; most of the other visitors cannot.  They will sit in the parking log for three long hours, trying to keep the toddlers entertained.  The shame and disgrace of incarceration clings to the families of the incarcerated.

Which brings me back to yesterday’s full day of testimony concerning prisons, inmates, inmates-in-waiting (the children of the incarcerated) and the mechanics of the New Jim Crow. (more…)