Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Race and the Left


I know race is a touchy subject, but it’s one that won’t go away, especially during a presidential election that features the country’s first African American president seeking reelection. So here goes.
I choose to address race and the left because, being active on Twitter, I see frequent debates between supporters of Pres. Obama, many of whom happen to be people of color, and some of the President’s harshest liberal critics, most of whom seem to be white. In and of itself, that doesn’t mean anything. The President has plenty of white supporters and plenty of black critics; there is no one-to-one correlation between race and support for, or opposition to, Pres. Obama. There are, however, occasions when the issue of race arises in those debates, and that seems to happen frequently these days.
I’m also sensitive to the issue because I it caused a rift between me and a long-time Twitter friend, an individual whom I won’t name because I have no doubt he’s a genuinely decent person, and because I’m certain that he, a white liberal who’s sometimes very critical of the President, is not racist in the least. So I don’t want to sic anybody on this particular Tweeter should my point here be missed.
But that difficult exchange with a former Twitter follower/followee illustrates the crux of the problem, which is two-fold: Yes, I think racism exists on the left; and, no, refusing to talk about it will not solve the problem.
Allow me to explain where I’m coming from. I certainly don’t automatically equate criticism of Pres. Obama – from the left or the right – with racism. I know many critics of the President (again, from the left and the right) who happen to be white yet who, I can say with absolute confidence, do not take race into consideration, consciously or otherwise, when they assess this President’s job performance.
Nonetheless, aside from people I know to be (or, I should say, really, really believe to be) utterly unbigoted, I can’t help but ask whether racism plays a role in some – not all, but some – of the considerable animosity directed to the country’s first black president. Take, for example, the more extreme elements of the Tea Party: Those who called Pres. Obama a Marxist; those who equated the President’s health care reform to the Holocaust; those who insisted he is secretly Muslim (so?); and those who went out of their way to caricaturize his race and ethnicity.
Of course, even the brashest right-winger will deny he or she is racist, and very few people will use overtly racist language in public. But even jurors in a court of law are told that they should “use common sense gained from [their] experiences in life, in evaluating what [they] see and hear.” (See, e.g., Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil), Instruction No. 1.01.) Certainly we can do the same thing in politics.
In other words, I know racism in a badly misspelled protest sign when I see it.
Racism on the left presents a trickier question, because the same conservatives whose hackles are permanently raised at the mere suggestion of it on their side are the first to accuse liberals of being history’s greatest racist monsters. Hitler was a liberal, they say. Clarence Thomas was the victim of a high-tech lynching! And, via Ann Coulter, there’s this catch-all: “It’s outrageous the way liberals treat a black conservative … Nothing liberals fear more than a black conservative. Ask Allen West. Ask Michael Steele …”
And then, of course, there’s affirmative action. Don’t even get me started on that.
But as misguided as those conservative attacks on liberals may be, it’s implausible to suggest that liberals can’t be racist, or that none of the millions of Americans who call themselves liberal – not a single one – is a racist. This is America; wherever a few million of us are gathered, I can guarantee you you’ll find a few bigots in the crowd.
In any event, it’s my perception (emphasis on perception) that there is a double-standard on the left when it comes to Pres. Obama. Meaning that he seems to be criticized more vociferously than, to lapse momentarily into the argot of my profession, similarly situated Democratic presidents of the past. Take, for example, Bill Clinton, who brought us NAFTA; significantly expanded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to include physical searches of property in addition to traditional surveillance; and began the practice of extraordinary rendition – that is, sending suspected terrorists to foreign countries for interrogation, countries that do not observe the legal niceties we do (in plain English: they torture). Or Jimmy Carter, the liberal icon who illicitly supported the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia after Vietnam deposed Pol Pot in 1979.
Those are some pretty un-liberal things to do; but in my perception (there’s that word again) neither Bill Clinton nor Jimmy Carter ever faced the kind of scrutiny, nor the kind of harsh criticism, Pres. Obama’s been subjected to since the moment he took office. Which is not to say there weren’t lefties who criticized Presidents Clinton and Carter for the very things I mention above; but on the whole those Democratic presidents didn’t face the daily barrage of criticism from the left that Pres. Obama faces.
Or so it seems to me.
Now all I’ve done so far is to identify what I see as a double-standard. That a double-standard exists doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the product of racism. I can imagine any number of reasons why it might exist, or appear to exist, not the least of which is that we’re living in the age of blogs and Twitter and other social media, where virtually everyone is connected to the internet and virtually everyone can (and does) share his or her political opinions all day every day. And then, too, there are some liberals who’d had enough of doggedly supporting less-than-liberal Democratic presidents and decided long before Sen. Obama announced his candidacy that they just weren’t going to take it anymore, no matter who was in the White House.
But the mere existence of certain possible explanations for that double-standard does not necessarily eliminate all other possible explanations. So it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether that double-standard might be due, in part, to racism on the left. Might be due to racism. In part.
Because like I said before, there’s no reason we can’t bring our common sense and life experiences to bear on the issue; and all these gray hairs on my head suggest I have a fair amount of the latter, if not the former. What my life experiences (and what passes for common sense in my world) tell me is that it’s not only possible but likely that racism plays a role in the way some liberals view the President … which, in turn, partly explains the double-standard.
Of course, you’re free to disagree with me. Maybe you don’t think the double-standard exists in the first place. Maybe you think Pres. Clinton and Pres. Carter faced exactly the same type of criticism – the same volume, the same frequency, the same intensity – that Pres. Obama faces today. Or maybe you agree the that a double-standard exists, but you’re certain that it’s not due to racism at all. Fair enough. I disagree, but none of us is a mind reader.
What I’m saying is, I think there’s a double-standard on the left, and I think it’s fair to ask whether it’s partly caused by racism. You know what that is? That’s not some crazy party-loyalty-fueled delusional conspiracy theory. That’s the starting point for an open, honest discussion – one that some people on the left apparently are afraid to have.
So, here’s the deal. If I call you a racist simply because you disagree with the President, by all means: Call me out on it. But if all I do is to point out a double-standard on the left and ask the question whether it could be due to race, at least in part, you don’t get to shut down the conversation just because it makes you uncomfortable.
And you know what else? Everything I just said about race and the left applies equally to gender and the left. But that’s the subject of another post …

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Interrupting All Programmes …


Yes, it’s been awhile since I visited my old stomping grounds. Truth is, I took a hiatus from blogging about law and politics, turning my attention instead to training for the Illinois Marathon this past April with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Team In Training Program. Also during that period, I had hoped to move out of the solo practice of law (which is what I’ve been doing since early 2001, except for a brief stint with a suburban law firm), but that hasn’t panned out so far.
So, I’m back.

You didn’t think I could stay away for an entire presidential election season, did you?

Hah. Not a chance.
As much as I’d like to ignore the lunacy of electoral politics in America, I find it doesn’t get any better when I ignore it. If anything, it gets worse – to-wit: The presumptive Republican nominee has taken up with Donald Trump (that is, four-time bankruptcy filer Donald Trump), who can’t seem to give up on his lunatic-fringe birther conspiracy theory despite the fact that the President laid the issue to rest more than a year ago. Note that I don’t say Pres. Obama laid the controversy to rest, because that implies there was an actual controversy over his place of birth; rational human beings accepted the so-called “short form” birth certificate his campaign produced back in 2008 for what it was: conclusive legal proof of his birth here in these United States. Indeed, try to get a copy of your own birth certificate, or your spouse’s or child’s birth certificate, anywhere in the United States and you’re likely to be given essentially the same document. Because it’s a damn birth certificate.
But I digress.
The point is, I wander off for a few months to train for a marathon and when I come back, lo and behold, people are just as crazy as when I left. If not more so. Only now, there’s a presidential election at stake and I’m not going to sit on the sidelines and let the craziness go unchecked.
So I’ll be stopping by here every so often to bring the sanity, if it’s possible to bring the sanity anymore. Feel free to comment, if you’re so inclined, and maybe even share a post with your friends if you think it’s worthy. Just know this: I’m not going to suffer the lunatic fringe lightly. Forewarned is forearmed, or something like that.
Also, I’m happy to announce that I’ll also be returning to co-host The Tim Corrimal Show on Sundays (thanks, Tim, for having me back!). And yes, I will still post occasional running-related posts over at my running blog, Running … From Chicago, if you’re in to that sort of thing.
And finally, if you’re on the Twitter Machine you can follow me (@D_v_E) – and if you drop me a line, I’ll even follow back.
So buckle in, people. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.