Reality check

I've spent the better part of the past year focused on writing a dissertation and buying a house. I cannot recommend doing these two things at the same time. It means that my capacity for thoughts, large and small, became narrowed to two domains: qualitative research method of regulatory activities and real estate law. I couldn't handle anything outside of this, which is a long way of explaining why my last blog entry was June of 2008.

And it seems that I am always inspired by someone writing about Obama and the election. I've been thinking about the election of Obama alot lately, at least when I am not thinking about my research or how to find the right contractor.

I am excited about the election of Barack Obama. I was excited to see the pictures my friend in Wilmington, DE posted of his stop there yesterday. I will probably watch the inauguration, which I have not done since Clinton was first elected.

At the same time, I am skeptical that Obama is going to meet the expectations that so many seem to have of him. He is not the liberal that my more liberal colleagues see and desire. Neither is he the liberal that so many of my mother's right-wing friends fear. And if you look at who he has picked for his team, all I see is caution.

Granted, Obama is inheriting problems that we have not seen in two generations. A severe economic recession (if we are lucky), two wars, and a quickly changing world. These challenges alone make the kinds of structural changes that progressives like myself would like to see difficult to come by. More importantly, as much as I believe that Obama will be a good president, looking at his history and his choices, I just don't see him heralding in the next Pax Americana.

Obama's election has great symbolic value. As one woman in the Boston Globe Magazine wrote today, his election may pave the way for non-white Americans to see embrace both their ethnic identity and their American identity, a privilege previously held only by the Irish, Italians, some Jews, and perhaps Poles.

At the same time, there are material changes that we would like to see happen and want to believe that Obama will bring. Equitable access to health, improved school systems, wider and equitable access to college, a refocus on public transportation and away from highway building, stronger environmental protection laws, stronger civil rights laws, a more equitable tax system, etc. A tall order indeed.

Maybe it's because I don't want to be disappointed. More likely its because I know the structure of government and know that Obama will have split Senate governed by timid Democrats, few of whom can be said to really be innovative, much less progressive, thinkers. I will maintain hope but I'm not holding my breath.

Michelle Obama

I haven't written in a while. I've been focused on my dissertation, as I promised my husband. The opportunity costs are mounting and I need to get this done.

But I couldn't let this one slip by.

I read an article today about Michelle Obama in the NYT. Overall, I think it was about as honest and positive portrayal of Ms. Obama as we can expect. Newspapers these days do not do a very good job of talking about smart people who have complicated views of the world. It is all that much harder when they are generally good and nice people. Regardless, there are two things in the article that bothered me.

First, this quote from Senator Claire McCaskill:

All she has to do is be likable

Apparently, she doesn't have to be smart. Or tough. She doesn't need to have her own mind, her own story, or her own opinion. She just needs to not offend anyone. Lest we have another uppity woman in the White House -- and a black one at that! To hear this coming from a woman senator is as heartbreaking as it is disgusting. I can only hope that the quote was taken out of context.

But the more difficult issue that I think the article highlights is the tension between trying to move towards a "post-racial" America and the reality that while many things have changed, many things remain the same.

I admire Obama's position that we need to move beyond the past, as he famously stated in that speech in Philly earlier this year. I also believe that it is naive. You cannot move beyond racism and bigotry without confronting it. Michelle Obama's story, as told in this NYT article, demonstrates the continuing need to point out the elephant in the room. If someone didn't do that, there might have been vaccine experiments in Chicago that focused exclusively on black teenage girls. Apparently no one saw the parallel to Tuskegee. Hmm, I wonder why?

The Democratic primary race clearly showed that this country still has issues with race. We all know that the rumors implying that Obama was Muslim and many of the other race-baiting comments (like implying that he might have been a drug dealer) came from the Clinton campaign. Let us not forget the "hard working Americans, white Americans" slip up. I really do not believe that Hillary Clinton is racist. She may feel entitled but I do not for a second believe it is because she believes that, because she is white, she deserved the nomination more than Obama. But once you starting going down that road, it is a slippery slope.

The more recent attacks on Ms. Obama also point to a country that has yet to move beyond race. Why else would there be the effort to portray her as an "Angry Black Woman"? Apparently for some people, there's something offensive about angry black women. Not quite sure why angry white women are less offensive, unless you believe that if a white woman is angry there must be a good reason. Why should a highly educated, wealthy black woman be angry? It must be because she resents white people and wants to oppress all white people and take their jobs. There goes that slippery slope again.

I agree with Senator Obama that white working class anger is real. But we cannot ignore that this country's largest social failings fall disproportionately on non-whites. We also cannot ignore the reality that the biggest obstacle to helping poor and working class whites is the objection that many people, especially those in leadership positions, have to providing any assistance to non-whites. Remember what many Southern states did when it was forced to integrate their schools? They shut them down. They did this despite the fact that it would hurt poor white children as much as it would black children. Welfare reform under Reagan was made using images of the "welfare queen," a black woman with a full closet, jewelry box, and a Cadillac paid for through her several children. Did cutting back on AFDC under Reagan, and further under Clinton, hurt white folks? Sure did. But it was intended to hurt non-whites. Until angry, working class whites understand this, this country will never be able to move beyond the past.

As Michelle Obama's story shows, we cannot get over the past until we start talking about it. As she put it:

Real change comes from having enough comfort to be really honest and say something very uncomfortable.

That might require being a little less likable. Unfortunately, it doesn't make for easy campaigning. And isn't this what this campaign is about - change?

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.

Racialized views of undocumented immigrants

When I talk about immigration in my classes, one of my favorite questions to ask is: who is an "illegal" immigrant. Most of my students think all undocumented immigrants are Latin American. I then show them a group picture of undocumented immigrants receiving assistance from a local immigration center here in Boston. With only a handful of exceptions, the group of about two dozen people are white. I would imagine that they are probably Irish. My students are usually dumbfounded. Depending on the time available we discuss whether it changes their view of the issue. Most of my students need more time to think it through. Or at least time to forget what they just saw.

Today in the Boston Globe, Kevin Cullen wrote about a local undocumented immigrant who died of pneumonia. As he states, no one will ever know if the young man didn't go to the hospital because of fear of getting caught and deported, "stubborn pride", or simple lack of knowledge. The young man in the article is Irish.

I give Cullen credit for humanizing the often overheated rhetoric around immigration. If you listen too much to the likes of Lou Dobbs, it would be very easy to forget or ignore the fact that immigrants are human beings. Strategically, Cullen's article is helpful in showing people, mainly white Americans, that undocumented immigrants are not some unknowable "other". Undocumented immigrants are, and look, just like them.

And that is also why I find this article discomfitting. Human beings have a knack for rationalizing contradictory rules in order to reduce cognitive dissonance. This means that behavior that is considered unacceptable for some is excused for others. This happens in race relations all the time. Even today, it is o.k. for white men to have sexual relations with women of color, however there is widespread discomfort when black men have sexual relations with white women. Studies of the sentences given to white men versus black men who have committed murder find that the harshness of the sentence is significantly related to the race of the victim; black murderers of white victims get considerably longer sentences and are more likely to receive capital punishment than white murderers of black victims. In this case, Cullen's article may simply lead white people to forgive the undocumented status of this Irishman but continue to view undocumented Latinos and Asians as criminal.

The Irishman in the article was hardworking, skilled, and employed. There is no mention of whether he paid his taxes, or whether his employers made their Social Security and Medicare contributions as they are supposed to. I would bet that most would assume that he did, if only because he is white. I would also bet that an equally sympathetic portrayal of a hardworking, skilled Latino immigrant would be met with accusations or at least assumptions of not paying taxes and taking jobs away from people who are allegedly "entitled" to those jobs.

Cullen's article is necessary in order to inject a little bit of rationality and understanding in this discussion. It is may also unfortunately have the effect of reifying racialized understandings of which "illegal" immigrants deserve sympathy. It is time to see the immigration debate as one based primarily on race. An undocumented Irishman faces the same risks and likely harbors the same fears as an undocumented Latino. Except that I doubt that South Boston or Dorchester is on ICE's list of next likely places to raid. I would bet that if an ICE agent walked into the Eire Pub, it would be to have a beer after coming from community sweeps of Chelsea or New Bedford.

Why I might vote for Obama

I realized the other day that I have become inclined to vote for Obama, despite some reservations I have about some of his positions, because I have become more conscious of the racism in this country. When I lived in California, I was a member of the largest non-white group in the state and the large demographic group in So.Cal. Almost everyone I went to school with at CSULA was non-white. Everyone I worked with was Latino and, if I wanted to move up in my profession, others would see me as white and I would still be Latina. Granted, I lived in L.A. during the governorship of Pete Wilson, which I see now as the beginning of the contemporary wave of anti-Latino sentiment. But I don't think I felt the level racism that his policies embodied because when I looked around, I saw my people everywhere. They were definitely in low paying janitorial jobs at my college and they were picking strawberries in Ventura County. But they were also reporters on the news, they were sitting on the city council, they were teachers, doctors, lawyers and business owners.

Moving out to the East Coast where I was truly in the minority really opened my eyes to this thing called racism and the issue of race relations. It also made me more aware of my white skin privilege. Here people took it for granted that I was white and would say things to me or in front of me that they would never say in front of my darker skinned parents or my long-haired, mustachoed, Mexican American husband. Moreover, many white people here are so racist they don't even see the racism in their words and deeds. In California, white racists owned their racism. Here, they don't see the prejudice in making assertions about who deserves to have access to a college education, to be able to get health care, to be provided the same rights in the criminal justice system, to even be in this country. And pointing it out to them just makes them either really uncomfortable or really angry. They aren't racist. They have friends who are brown. They give scholarships to brown people all the time. They don't necessarily want too many them sitting on the board of directors of local organizations, but they are happy with providing them with social services and other benefits. We aren't racist, they say, because we give them free after school tutoring and basketball uniforms.

I also think my experience with a friend's campaign for the state legislature this last summer reinforced to me that we have a long way to go to improve race relations. This became clear not just because the campaign brought out the racism that I already knew existed in this neighborhood, but because of the blindness to racism among these white "progressives" who were assisting us. These folks, although clearly understanding and sympathetic to the issue of racism and prejudice, had also clearly never seen it. They not only did not know how to handle racist comments when confronted with them, they still could not get themselves to see that people still do believe these things. Whenever confronted with it, it was treated as a fluke and not a norm. In fact, it is the norm in this neighborhood and in many others. It may be more overt here and more subtly pernicious elsewhere. But racism and prejudice is alive and well and I see that more clearly today than ever before.

I suppose I hope that if Obama were to be elected president, maybe, just maybe, it might start to change the way white people think about non-white people. Maybe they would see us as less of a threat. Maybe they would be willing to open up their neighborhoods, their loan funds, and their play groups to us. Maybe the teachers, school counselors, and administrators will be less likely to write so many of us off. Maybe, just maybe, it might inspire black and brown folks to believe that things could actually be different for them. Maybe the lack of hope that pervades our brown and black neighborhoods would ebb just enough so that there is one less excuse for believing that doing well in school is "acting white", one less excuse for the drug dealing, gun slinging, gang banging way of life. Maybe the apathy will subside just enough to get people out to vote and involved in their local schools, local non-profit organizations, or at least involved with their neighbors.

Yes, it is a vote for the symbol. But, no more so than voting for Clinton because she is a woman. When there is little difference between candidates on the issues, don't we then vote on ideology? Don't you then vote for the person who symbolizes, and hopefully will put into action, a world that you would like to see made into reality? Obama symbolizes the hope that maybe this country can get past the specter of race so that brown and black peoples can finally have the freedoms and opportunities promised to us.