Kapitol Hill

Lazy Man's Substitute

Every now and then our moral outrage comes face to face with our moral consistency.  And quite often that is where the dilemma rests.  So it is with the controversy over the firing of news analyst Juan Williams by NPR.

On Monday, Williams was fulfilling his other role as a commentor for Fox News.  Williams has worked for Fox since 1997, when FNC was just developing its programming and placed its hopes on a veteran newsman, Bill O'Reilly to be its anchor.  In hindsight, O'Reilly has paid dividends.  And, so has Williams.  Juan, considered one of the most liberal voices on the right of center cable news channel not only was a good jousting partner but often joined the party of lefty criticism.

Many people remember Williams on the verge of tears during the 2008 DNC Convention reacting to Michelle Obama's speech.  But few recall him calling her a racial radical when he described her as "Stokley Carmichael in a designer dress" less than a year later.

But long before his voice was heard on NPR or his presence was felt at Fox News, Williams was a highly respected reporter at the Washington Post.  He rose through the ranks and enjoyed a prominent position on the Washington Post's Magazine's rotation.  It is in that position that during the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings that Williams became a vocal defender of Thomas against the allegations of Anita Hill.  Hill was accusing Thomas of outlandish sexual advances and harassment.   Williams defense, essentially: "no big deal."  It's not surprising he would see things that way since he was embroiled in his own sexual harassment scandal at the Post.  One which ultimately ended his career at the paper.

Here is how the Dallas Morning News recalled the situation:

"While the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings were under way in 1991, Washington Post columnist Juan Williams emerged as one of Thomas's chief defenders. Williams minimized the gravity of Thomas's alleged sexual harassment of Anita Hill. Boys will be boys, after all. But it's no surprise Williams thought it was no big deal. At the time, he was involved in repeated episodes of sexual harassment in The Post newsroom. It was only after several women in the newsroom spoke up that The Post took action -- forcing Williams to sit in an isolated part of the newsroom where he could be watched at all times."

This is the Juan Williams NPR rehabilatated and Fox News hired to speak on the behavior political and otherwise of others.  Which brings us to the current uproar.  Williams was fired from his position at NPR for appearing on Fox News and during what was a rational argument to distinguish muslims from extremists who use Islam to validate their terrorists action said, "when I get on a plane, i have to be honest, when I see someone dressed in muslim garb -- Identifying themselves first as muslims rather than American, I get nervous."

Two days later he was no longer employed by NPR.

Many, most of them on the Right, have criticized NPR for giving Williams a pink slip.  A violation of ones free speech is one reason.  The more educated, who know that only the government can infringe upon First Amendment rights, suggest Williams was only expressing his belief -- a belief held by millions of others -- since the 9/11 attacks. It's a moral outrage, they cry and have called for Congress to eliminate the minute funding it provides through competitive grants to not only NPR but PBS and other public media outlets. Yet, none of these "supporters" see the hypocrisy in their own arguments.  When Harry Reid suggested President Obama didn't have a "negro dialect" many of these same people called for his resignation as Majority Leader.  When Rick Sanchez of CNN suggested Jews hold a disproportionate number of leadership positions in the media, there was silence.  The fact Williams said something that for political reasons is being broadcast makes the cliche politics makes strange bedfellows all to real.

But all of this misses the point.

Williams wasn't fired because he gets nervous when he sees an easily identifiable Muslim sitting in first class on an airplane.  He was fired because  his viewpoint exposed a characteristic which a journalist of his caliber should never have.  An intellectually lazy one.

That is how Williams described similar viewpoints when he worked for the Washington Post.  In 1986, the New Republic solicited various opinions on a story it published about a New York City jeweler who would lock his doors or refuse to buzz in potential black customers for fear of, once again, being robbed.  William was one of those who responded to the request and penned these words:

"The race of a potential customer would be one factor among many to be considered as I girded myself against thieves."

Williams went on...

Unless I am a racist, race and age cannot be the sole deciding factors in calculating whom I will and will not let into my store.

He hit the proverbial nail on the head with this...

It all comes down to a subjective judgment of what dangerous people look like. This does not necessarily entail a racial judgment. Cabdrivers who don't pick up young black men as a rule are making a poorly informed decision. Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment.

When Williams suggested that merely seeing an identifiable Muslim aboard a plane makes him nervous because he thinks they might do him harm, he was essentially calling himself a person who makes poorly informed decisions.  He by his own critique was exhibiting a discriminatory view which as he so eloquently put it is the "lazy man's substitute for using good judgment."

His viewpoint is a lazy one because none of the 9/11 hijackers were dressed in "muslim garb" when they hijacked those planes.  Nor did they adhere to the predominate sects of Islam.   They were dressed as American as a J Crew model.  A muslim who identifies him or herself outwardly is the least likely to be a terrorists.  Any israeli bus driver  will tell you that.

Are there Americans who, because of 9/11 and the subsequent "War on Terrorism" come to identify terrorists with Islam and Muslims? Sure.   One Fox News host even called all muslims terrorists.  Is it simply a matter of common sense based upon a legitimate fear of another terrorists attack that many people look upon muslims with an eye of caution? It's reasonable, certainly.

But the Williams of 1986 answered that too...

Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.

So while Williams presents himself on Fox and other media outlets to defend himself and criticize NPR for its actions.  He cannot escape his own conclusions or dismiss his own actions.  He claims his nervousness is not based on bigotry.  But when religion becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to oneself, what else would you call it?

If it's not bigotry, or islamophobia, it is certaintly lazy.  And I can't think of any employer who would want a lazy man working for them.

Kapitol Hill publishes a new commentary every week.  Feel free to leave a comment. You can also follow Kapitol Hill on Twitter@ Kapitol_Hill and on Facebook.

 

A Long Time Ago

Just when you thought  "I am not a witch" would be the one catchphrase that would last long after the mid-term elections are over the political world was introduced to another one earlier this week that seems echos across party lines. "Rent is Too Damn High!"  Not only does the statement seem to be true in the majority of renters minds, it is also the political party of one, Jimmy McMillan. An eccentric former Vietnam War veteran who suspects his exposure to Agent Orange requires him to wear tight black gloves.

It is not exactly sure how many people are a part of McMillan's political coalition, but he was able to registered in New York state as a political party and thus found himself on the same stage with Democratic nominee Andrew Cuomo and his Republican challenger Carl Palidino along with four others who were just as obscure as McMillan during the first gubernatorial debate.  When it came to fixing the growing deficits, the problems with schools even social issues such as gay marriage McMillan stole the show with catchy responses like "The Rent is Too Damn High Party says if you want to marry a shoe, I'll marry you."  By the end of the night even the likely new governor of New York, if you believe his 30 percent lead in the polls, Andrew Cuomo was won over by McMillan's argument and had to admit, "Jimmy's right, rent is too damn high!."

Whether it was a political circus or just one more example of the extraordinary leap the country has made from sanity to irrational political theater is still to be decided.  The final analysis will come on Election Night.

But what the New York Governor's debate did illustrate was that 2006 was a long, long time ago.

Remember 2006, when politicians, which said offensive things were immediately denounced  by their peers and voters.  George Allen is the quintessential example of this rational thought process.  During one of his campaign rallies for re-election to  his U.S. Senate seat in Virginia he referred to an Indian immigrant working for his opponent as  "Macaca."

Most of us never heard of the word, but through research and media reports it was discovered the word is an offensive terms  defined as a racial slur.  In 2006, saying as Allen did, "...Macaca over there." ended his career with a self-inflicted wound.  He lost the election by 10,000 votes.

Four years later, candidates are not only saying a whole lot worse, but emailing and actually wearing much worst and still are viable candidates for their respective offices.

Under the umbrella of limiting government and decrying the idea of political forces treading on individual rights we have seen example after example of extreme moves being publically exposed without retribution. Candidates calling Asian-American Energy Secretary Chu, "Chow-Mein" are not vilified but applauded.  A candidate telling a group of latino students that some of them look asian and even calling herself asian does nothing to derail her chances.  One more wears Nazi uniforms on the weekends for reenactments of favorable German won battles during WWII.  Another candidate for higher office compares homosexuality to alcoholism and yet another calls the Civil Rights Amendment that enforced the equal protection laws of the Constitution bad policy still leads in polls in his pursuit for a Senate Seat.

Many thought the election of Barack Obama as the first African-American to hold the office of President of the United States would usher in what they hoped was a "post-racial" world.  Where Americans would see individuality and content of character more than they saw color of skin.  If Obama's supporters thought polical change would come easy, those who though post-racial would become a reality were even more naive.

In fact, because we have elected an African-American to the U.S. Presidency, it seems the racial atmosphere has gotten worst -- at least in the political arena.

In the political arena its okay to paint the President, who happens to be black, as an African witch doctor.  In the political arena,  its okay to forward emails that show the President as a Pimp and the first lady as a "street worker" and still win a major political nomination.  In the political arena, it is okay for the Virginia Republican Chairman to email around a joke in which he says his dog was initially denied welfare but then he reminded the administrator that, "his dog is black, lazy, unemployed, doesn't speak English or know who his daddy is."  This is not only politics at its worst -- it is people at their worst -- playing on people's fears and hatred for one another purely for political gain.

Looking at the free of rebuke, without consequence rants voters seemingly are allowing candidates a pass on, it has to feel like 2006 was a lot more than just four years in history.

Perhaps when all the votes are counted, reality will prove presumption wrong.  The extremes of this country will give way to the overwhelming moderate mainstream of this country.  The view that labeling the President a pimp, the view that comparing black people to dogs, and that the Civil Rights Act was historic not unconstitutional  will prevail. Afterall in many of those political races the polls seem to suggest a tightening, that the extremists are losing support rather than their opponent gaining.

But no matter what happens on Election night, I for one can't wait to recall the mid-term election of 2010 and sigh with relief saying, that was a long time ago.

Kapitol Hill publishes a commentary every week.  Check back next week for a new commentary.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Sometimes CSPAN can provide a glimpse into just how off the tracks America seems to be these days.  CSPAN, a public cable channel funded through fees of cable companies, is a unique experiment, which allows Americans to interact and be involved through call-ins.  Each day thousands of average citizens separate into Republican, Democrat and Independent lines to voice their opinions on the topic of the day.  Many are frustrated, some seeking more insight and others just to vent their anger and dismay at the state of affairs.

So it was this week when a 90-year old woman, lined up in the republican line called into CSPAN during a conversation about government intervention on Wall Street.  One knew this call would be one to remember when she started her comments with, "I want to ask the colored man a question."  She went on to express frustration that African-Americans -- or in her words -- colored people were too busy talking about what Whites did too them, and not embracing what society has done for them.

She seemed annoyed that there is too much talk about slavery and not enough gratitude given to the "welfare,  free medical, free everything."  As an African-American who is paying for his health insurance, student loans for college and doling out dollars for everything from food to rent I wonder where the line to get free everything is -- someone forgot to tell me about that.

It's comical that the host of the show that day was a black man who tried his best to not only keep a straight face but also stay on topic by reminding her that this "is more a conversation about the administration and people on wall street and not necessarily one based on race."  The look on his face is priceless, but the fact she ended her call with the disclaimer that she's not a racist is even more invaluable.  While she doesn't think herself racists, the comments left in the Youtube.com comment section seems to suggest no matter what she claimed, that's exactly the conclusion of most people.

For the record, I think her not to be racists but the embodiment of the cliche, it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.  When this frail woman was active in society, colored was the term that was far better than Negro or even Nigger.  She wasn't racist -- just simply physically and in vocabulary stuck in the 1940s.  She can be excused.

But what is  New York Governor Candidate Carl Paladino's excuse.

On Sunday, during a speech to a group of Orthodox Jews suggested that our children not be "brainwashed" into thinking homosexuality was acceptable.  It gets worst.  In his prepared remarks, according to the New York Times he was set - but decided against it -- to say “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.”  For Mr. Palidino, this latest shocking statement joins a slew of others that have turned him into a failed candidate for the Governor's mansion two weeks before the election.

But his proclamation no matter how offensive is just words.  It should not be lost that in the very same city that Mr. Palidino made his comments, police were rounding up eight young men who brutally attacked three men for being gay.

The Associated Press reports that before each man was sodomized and beat to near death the young men inquired, "Is it true that you're a f-g?"

It's doubtful that Palidino would endorse such brutal behavior, but his words during the speech give comfort to a society that continues to treat homosexuals in this country as less than citizens.  Even the most innocent -- our young people.

His words unfortunatley speak just as loud as their actions.

Simply, because the words of those who aggressively attack homosexuals as "less than" are having severe consequences.

No more is that apparent than in the battle to protect young students from harassment in the halls of schools.  Over the past five years states have aggressively passed legislation protecting students against cyber-bullying -- but legislation specifically calling anti-homosexual bullying a crime or at the very least a tactic worthy of stoppage has stalled.  Mostly at the behest of cultural conservatives and religious groups, like the Catholic Church.

In Minnesota, a local group connected to the national organization Focus on the Family has been actively fighting any reform of bullying legislation there because adding gay students to a list of those that should be protected from harassment encourages homosexuality.  In fact any attempt to pass national legislation has stalled due to this very same issue.

It is amazing  the cultural wars against equal treatment and protection based on sexual orientation has made students vulnerable to cruel treatment that has ended in many cases these students committing suicide to end the torment.  At least 5 young people have ended their lives in the last few weeks because of the severe hostility to their orientation.  What words do we say to their parents.

These actions speak louder than any words from a fringe gubernatorial candidate or preacher speaking from a pulpit.

At some point we have to confront these words with action, ourselves.  We must just as passionately tell them their words serve no positive purpose and the active responses that people make because of them are just as much their responsibility as anyone Else's.

If we do not confront these offensive words with an equal level of passion against them, we are just as culpable.  Silence in the face of oppression is tacit approval.

Actions speak louder than words.  It's time to drown them out.

Kapitol Hill publishes a new commentary every week. Feel free to leave a comment and check back next week. 

Assault On Reason

When former Vice-President Al Gore wrote his critical analysis of American thought in 2007 who could have known that three years later the "assault on reason" he described would be in full bloom.  In his book, Assault On Reason Gore argues that rational thought in our political and social arenas is being sidelined by more emotional string pulls: fear and faith.

Gore summarizes reason as the ability to measure and compare all ideas -- to give each notion a fair hearing and discard those that don't make much sense for society and us as individuals -- it is the concept of the "Marketplace of Ideas."  John Stuart Mill is widely cited as the founder of this philosophy.  And, it is the bases for what we in America call "Freedom of Speech."  In the end, rational people will eventually dismiss any use of bad ideas and bad policy. 

But what happens when those making the decision on which ideas to keep and discard are not rational, at all.  What happens then?

We might just find out, on election night this November.  Even a cursory glance across the country at the caliber of candidates running for elected office this year will give anyone a plentiful basket of examples of irrational thoughts being presented within the marketplace.

One candidate believes that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional because in his view it wasn't an attempt to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments, it was an intrusion on private enterprise.  Another candidate believes not only is unemployment insurance unconstitutional -- but so is the minimum wage and any regulation that hinders businesses from abusing employees to maximize their own profits.  Yet another candidate believes the Second Amendment provides citizens the right to use firearms to remedy Congressional votes they may disagree with.  Another example is the  view held by a number of candidates that birth control pills in essentially murder.

On any other day one might be able to ignore these positions as extreme and outside the mainstream of rational thought. But not this time.  A number of these political candidates have not only won their political party's often partisan primary elections but are competitive if not leading in general election polls.  These once so extreme views that they could be firmly be called on the fringe have landed in the middle of the road and could end up with a seat at the policy making tables on Capitol Hill.

How have these ideas become acceptable in the marketplace that Mill so grandly described? Quite simply because rational people are no longer deciding what stays and what goes.  Fear -- fear of loss of livelihood in the form of unemployment and foreclosures; fear of a changing world -- a world that is smaller, less white and more competitive with our children is the predominant reason.  But faith -- our retrenching into our own religious ethos and people's ability to use that faith to influence our motivations -- is fogging the lens as well. 

In short, Mill counted on people to act rationally for the marketplace of ideas to work.  He miscalculated that rational thought was more powerful than emotion.

Emotional responses to political decisions have historically had disastrous conclusions.  The rise of Nazism in Germany, the imprisonment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor, the reversal of post-Reconstruction laws given rise to Black Codes and Jim Crow.  History is full of examples of how irrational people have conducted irrational actions.

Another example came into the light this week. Susan M. Reverby, professor in the History of Ideas and Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies at Wellesley College uncovered a two year experiment conducted by U.S. government paid doctors to infect Guatemalans with Syphilis from 1946 to 1948.  The reason the U.S. government purposely gave scores of Guatemalans an infectious disease? To test how penicillin works in the human body.

If this story sounds familiar, that's because it is.  The same doctor Dr. John Cutler was also one of the lead researchers in Tuskegee, when the government decided not to treat African-American men who already were infected with syphilis even though for 40 years the men thought they were getting the best medical treatment possible.

Both of these incidents have garnered an apology from the United States government.  Secretary of State Hiliary Clinton when the Guatemala Test was made public called the experiment unethical, saying "Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health. We deeply regret that it happened."

That is the right stance, but it doesn't address the real issue.  Why did it happen?

When rational thought is dismissed, when the assault on reason is so effective what occurred in Tuskeegee, Alabama and Guatemala is inevitable. A decision based on reason and not fear would have prevented these experiments.

And that brings us to a question for those in the electorate who still hold a residue of reason; who they themselves are afraid of how the economy is functioning and how the world is evolving; who they themselves say a little prayer for the safety of their futures and their children's future; but, somehow can still see things rationally.

If you don't protect our futures from the assault on reason, what will be the incident the government will have to apologize for next?

Kapitol Hill publishes a new commentary every week.  Please feel free to leave a comment and check back next week.