In the category of satire - not!

A friend of mine sent me a link to an article from on online magazine reporting on an ineffective attempt at satire in a Long Island newspaper. The author of the article in The Independent, Rick Murphy, is apparently the newspapers co-publisher, co-owner, and Editor-In-Chief. In the column he poses as "Yo Mama Bin Barack" who seeks the presidency and displays stereotypical black ineloquence ("we won't denigrate or sophisticate but emulate and populate") and stereotypical black male aggression ("if [Clinton] gets too close, one of my New York advisors has advised me to, 'Bitch slap that ho.'"). The editor of the online newspaper, a black women's webzine, wrote to the editor of The Independent asking for an explanation and received an apology.

I am happy to report that I find this shocking. Not surprising, especially given what I've been told about Long Island, but shocking nonetheless. It will be a sad day when we stop being shocked by crap like this.

Murphy's column is clearly a poor, distasteful and bigoted attempt at satire. However, I would argue that the target of this bigotry wasn't solely Barack Obama. Obama is only the frame in which the author paints a more pernicious contempt of highly educated African Americans who seek social mobility and political power.

Murphy really begins by targeting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by denigrating his PhD in Theology. Granted, as a doctoral candidate, I'm a little bit sensitive to anything that smacks of anti-intellectualism. But the disparagement of the title "Doctor" continues throughout the piece. Given that the highest degree that Obama has obtained is a law degree, it is clear that Obama is not the exclusive target of this "satire". Murphy ends the column by denigrating the title Reverend. Given that Obama has no training in religious leadership and has not publicized holding any leadership positions in his own church, who is Murphy satirizing?

Education and religious leadership have historically been the two most reliable ways to move up the social and economic ladder in the black community, the latter being one in which the white (male) majority cannot control. In total, the column is not just a poor attempt to demean Obama or even Dr. King. It is hostile to all African Americans who have achieved or even seek any kind of social mobility by using the authority that comes through the attainment of advanced degrees or the authority that derives from religious leadership.

Which leaves open the question, when is it ever acceptable for a Black person, or any other non-white, to seek high political office? What combinations of qualities would the white man who wrote this drivel accept in a Black, Asian, or Latino candidate? Are there any? As my friend noted to me in an email this morning, perhaps there are none, at least for people like this. People like Rick Murphy will use the talents and credentials that enable some to disable others. You can even see it in his apology letter where he addresses the editor of the webzine by her first name when she addressed him by a more formal salutation. Apparently, she is not even good enough to be called "Ms.". Despite all of the progress that is seemingly being made, sometimes it seems little as changed.

Gender, civil rights and hope

In this presidential election, the mass media (mainstream and blogosphere alike) are focusing on the race versus gender card in the Democratic contest. May I start out by stating that this discussion is nothing but a days worth of manure from an industrial hog farm. Black men and women are voting for Clinton and white men and women are voting for Obama and vice versa. Have we not yet learned that people cannot always be reduced to their demographics?

I would also like to make it clear that feminism, or the effort to secure equal and equitable rights and opportunities for women to live and work in society free from discrimination and fear, is a civil rights concern. I do not claim to be a "feminist", at least not in the burn-your-bra, all-men-are-oppressors form. But the overall goals of feminism to allow women to choose to go to school, to play sports, to work in any field they choose, to choose whether or not to get married and to whom, or whether or not to have children and how, to vote, to travel and even check into a hotel without a husband are exactly the same goals that non-whites and other marginalized groups have sought. The feminism versus civil rights discussion is another truckload of chicken litter that serves no one but people who profit from divisiveness.

For me, this also isn't about substance versus charisma. I am a policy wonk. There's nothing I appreciate more than a well crafted policy. The books on my Amazon wishlist are policy books. I regularly seek out critical evaluations of policies in areas that I don't even work in just out of curiousity (guess what - Amber Alerts don't work).

The reason why Clinton is losing favor with people is not because she's all steak and Obama is all sizzle, as some have implied. This assertion is simply offensive. Obama has substantive policy proposals as well, some of which I don't entirely agree with and some of Clinton's proposals need either more work or a reality check. Also, Clinton does have her own charm. She's a powerful person who has survived personal and political attacks for most of her public life. There's a steadiness, steeliness, and a level-headedness that I might otherwise find attractive in a presidential candidate in these times. And despite everything I say below, if she is the nominee, I will vote for her.

With that said, Clinton's problems are in part related to her messaging. Obama's message about hope is attractive right now because people in this country are suffering or they are in a position to legitimately fear suffering in the very near future. Clinton has summarily dismissed this message as worthy of public discussion. That very dismissal is what makes her unattractive to me. I read somewhere that if you take away people's hope, you may be taking away the only thing they have. By dismissing the importance of hope in this day of economic insecurity and war you are dismissing the nature of humanity.

Even as someone who believes very strongly in the role of policy wonks and the technocracy in politics, I believe even more strongly that policy decisions should be made based on values that recognize people's essential humanity. We can't get decent immigration laws passed because our leadership has failed to see immigrants has human beings who deserve the same opportunities to work, go to school, play sports, live in a safe community, and do all of those other things that civil rights activists have fought for. We can't seem to put enough money in our urban schools for the same reason. We can't even get the president or the CIA to say that torture is wrong (not just illegal) because "terrorists" are apparently not human beings. Clinton's failure to see the importance of hope in society tells me that she does not necessarily see the humanity in the policies that she fights so hard for.

The basis of my vote this time around

In past elections I have always based my vote on the candidate whose position on social issues is closest to mine. I look at things like their position on abortion, civil rights, environmental protection, consumer protection, financial support for higher education, and (as of late), war.

Recent personal events have forced me to re-prioritize my issues of concern. I now look more closely at the candidate's position on economic issues. I have never really paid much attention to that in the past, except where those positions intersect with social issues (like increasing federal grants for college). Now, I am much more interested in where the candidate stands on tax policy, extension of unemployment benefits, and general spending policies.

Every economist of any regard has said that we are heading into a recession. The most cautious don't bother to try to predict how long it will last. However, even if the country begins to improve mid-summer, as some optimists suggest, the effects on the middle class, working class, and the poor will linger much longer. At least not without some serious intervention by the government.

I am lucky that I am involved in the kind of work that keeps me employed pretty much all of the time. Not always full time, but nonetheless employed. I am also lucky that my husband works under a union contract that virtually guarantees his employment for at least the next 3 years. However, my father is not so lucky. His company, a large national printing operation, is shutting down. He will be out of a job in 6 months, maybe less. It appears that they will have to sell their home of 20 years, a house they were hoping to give to one of my sisters and her new family, in order to weather this period. My sister is in no position to buy a house right now. As my mother says, how do you take twenty years of memories and move them to a smaller place?

This is the human element of this economic crisis. But it forces me to look at the candidate whose policy proposals will support people like my parents. I want a president and Congress who will extend unemployment benefits. I want universal health insurance. I want a realistic poverty line and food stamps to be extended to the working class. I want homeowner protections from unscrupulous mortgage brokers and laws that prevent people from signing onto mortgages they cannot afford. I don't need this for myself. I want this for my parents and my sisters and every one else like them.

As an independent voter, and someone who takes that seriously, I will have to even give the Republican candidates a look. I am looking for the candidate who has the political will or creativity to support the increasing numbers of people like my parents. If the Democratic nominee isn't willing or able to do that, then I may have to vote with the other side this time.