T-Paw gets in the mix.

I’d love to talk about the debate Monday night because I love debates, politics, and battle. Unfortunately I can’t for two major reasons:

1. It was the first debate, and there are only losers and non-losers there. Despite what you’ve heard, you can’t win them.

2. Pawlenty, supposedly, was a big loser.

Since Spin Alley Monday night, the murmur on the street has been that Pawlenty went soft, didn’t differentiate himself enough from Romney to get big donors on board, and should have stuck to his position he held on Fox News Sunday referring to the Massachusetts Healthcare Plan as “Ob-omney-Care.” Because this seems to be the prevailing opinion, let me explain why its wrong.

First off, almost everyone brought up the 1960’s debate between Kennedy and Nixon where in Nixon was beaten because he “erased the assassin image.” This was advice given to him by then VP candidate Henry Cabot Lodge. For historical disclosure, Lodge was the man ousted from the Senate by the Kennedy Machine and later a diplomat in Vietnam. As Old Yankee Money often does, he holds a wide resume.

But there are several ways in which this comparison is highly flawed. For one thing, neither man in the incumbent. Nixon, in that situation, had everything to lose. Kennedy was, at that point most famous Nationally for coming in second for the VP slot the election cycle previous. Pawlenty conversely made his non-pundit debut to the national stage last night. To come out of the gate as a complete jackass would mean you were, at best, a complete foil candidate – someone there to ruin another candidate (Like Jon huntsman will be). Also, in American politics, jerks can only get away with being jerks (and by that I mean not completely hated) if they’ve got some juice/charisma to them. Not to disparage, but this is not Pawlenty’s strong suit. A few notable jerks to parse the data would be Dick Cheney and a pre-scandal Anthony Weiner. One was universally hated, one was partisan hated but at least he was a media darling. Pawlenty is more of a Cheney when it comes to swagger.

Secondly, the GOP has a pecking order and generally follows it. You get the nomination when its your turn to get the nomination. Its why I think so many Obama-voting Democrats last time around recoiled at Clinton supporters saying “Its Hillary’s turn.” You could almost see them ask “Aren’t those GOP marching orders?” Romney has not only technically earned the Establishments hallpass to run, but he’s made sure no one else will usurp it from him. Going back to Nixon, in 1968 Reagan may have stolen that election from him, but Nixon’s southern strategy had paid dividends and Nixon walked off with the Nomination handily. Romney hasn’t exactly buddied up to Senators and Governors in early primary states (Palin’s been following Nixons plan far more closely), but Romney’s network is a Juggernaught. He’s driving towards record breaking fundraising donations and he’s coming off more like a Kennedy than a Nixon, choosing to forego states that cater to an alternative brand of Republicanism. If Iowa elected Huckabee over McCain last time around, you can bet your ass a Billionaire Mormon from the East Coast has a better chance of being elected Beauty Queen than Republican nominee. Pawlenty knows that if he can be the second Establishment candidate this time around, he’s got a far better shot of becoming President than he will if he manages to beat Romney out this time around. Here’s why:

1. Even if Romney grabs the Establishment position, theres no saying the Tea Party will let him get away with taking th nomination. Bachmann turned in an impressive performance Monday night, eradicating many of the myths about her as a know-nothing looney toon from the MidWest. Not to mention that idea that Rick Perry might get into the race. He’s a good deal more to the right than Bachmann, but I’ve seen few modern day politicians to match Rick Perry’s charisma.

2. The GOP still faces a highly formidable President who won by a very large margin in 2008 and with new shifting demographics, he’s poised to maintain a good deal of those Electoral Votes. (He will in no way maintain his numbers from 2008, but his chances are good).

3. 2016 is an open field. Biden is and has always been highly beatable. I also think by that time he’ll be too old to reasonably compete (He’ll be roughly 74 by then). Pawlenty saw what happened in 2008 and frankly it allows for anyone to get in there (Did anyone hope Obama would run in 2006 besides the hyperpartisans?)

The idea that Pawlenty has ruined his chances is only true if we take the short-view, election-cycle tunnel-vision approach that the 24-hour networks operate in. If Pawlenty looks at the landscape and surveys correctly, coming in a slick second, and getting in play for the VP position means 2016 looks like more of a lock for him than ever before stealing Iowa with ease as the local, NH was the no frills Establishment guy, losing to some dingbat down in SC (unless he uses Nixon’s SS) and then running against said individual or looking inevitable after the win. At that point the money’s rolling in, opposition donations are way down and he walks into the Nomination against a non-Administration Democrat who’ll be saddled with any bad thing that’s happened since 2007.

Unless, of course, Rick Perry gets in this time around; Then the horse race is on.

Sluts in the Modern Era

This week Ed Shultz was suspended for calling Laura Ingraham a “slut.” It wasn’t that cut and dry, of course. He called her a “talk slut” in the context of a rant on right-wing hypocrisy. Like most people hearing the comment, I don’t think it made much sense. As best as I can tell, the only connection was that (and I’m guessing here) Shultz felt Ingraham would say anything the GOP put out as a talking point.

So he’s suspended. Snarky comments are made all over the web by partisans. An apology is made. I’ll give Laura credit on this one, she did say (tweet) that she accepted the apology. One savvy blogger noted that Morning Joe (a show on the same network as Shultz) that next morning had a show dedicated to Women feeling empowered.

But in the land of “things that will get you suspended on radio/TV” slut seems to be the odd-man out. Unlike the other bombs that come before suspension N(black folks), F(homosexuals), R(mentally handicapped), or whatever word so corresponds with folks of Jewish and Latin decent, slut seems to me the only one that will both get you suspended, but isn’t an inherent piece of the person. In a world determined to diagnose Sex Addiction, slut still seems like an opinion based thing rather than an inherent attack on a group.

And while I don’t know Laura or Ed, I’m guessing they aren’t familiar with one another. So this cross-town insult, which didn’t make a lot of sense syntactically to begin with, now seems to be missing its stinger by virtue of unfamiliarity.

Historically, the words that will get you fired are not only something an individual can’t run away from, but its also a condemnation of an entire group. No one who’s ever used an N word ever made his complaints moot beyond the individual. Nor do those who decry homosexuality as an abomination think its limited to a few. But slut seems to, at least historically, have a different connotation. First of all, if someone saying “slut” meant all women were actually sluts, there’d be no contrast to make it vulgar. With the above examples the alternative was either Whiteness, or Heterosexuality, Mental Normality (as is defined socially), or Christianity. So by virtue of the insult, it can’t attack all women.

And historically, there has always been some degree of familiarity no matter how scant. As I said above, the relationship between Shultz and Ingraham seems to be no relationship at all. At its root, there is a character judgment made with moral implications when using the word “slut” so ever if we’re talking Shultz to mean “slut” in its most conventional form, our question should be – How does he know?

Now I’m sure most of you probably have said at some point in this scandal “the real question is ‘so what if she is?’” One’s sexual relations are of no business to anyone but those involved. This brings up the other historical point – Slut has generally been used as an attack levied by men against women to suggest by virtue of this one flaw, she is inherently flawed. Not only has this thought-process gone the way of the Puritans, we’ve come to know men to be of the same persuasion if not more so. (TIME this month asks “Why are powerful men such pigs.”)

So all this has lead to the question of where does the word come to today? Is it worthy of suspension? However you feel about the word, free speech, these hosts, or political talk radio – nobody really wants this to become standard fare. If slut were used as freely as “partisan” on a given program, you’d likely see ratings fall for a lack of intelligent coverage. And if we do think that its still as powerful as its been since we determined it to be an unacceptable statement of a woman, how do we reconcile this with Jerry Brown’s response to the issue when he was challenged back in September by Meg Whitmann for Governor of California. If he can nullify it so easily, can it really hold strength?

I’d love to hear what the ladies have to say on this one, but fellas, don’t be afraid to mix it up.

Cultural Progress

I’ve often said to friends who’ve complained about certain social philosophies prevailing “You just have to wait for the old people to die.”

Its crass, but most times its true. My father was 12 before Civil Rights Legislation was passed. For him, living in the North, he never knew separated drinking fountains or anything like that, but that was a reality for plenty of Americans. And for some of those Americans (despite the Civil Rights Legislation) can’t let it go. They may not advocate separate but equal, but may still be off-put by interracial marriage. This isn’t meant to be a discussion on race, but a discussion on how culture can be ingrained.

From 1933 to 1980, America was on a clear and left-ward trajectory. From 1980 until the present its been dialing some of that back (or trying to), but today we’re at a cross-roads we haven’t seen since (likely) 1887. And that is a culture ingrained is waning in the hearts and mind of Americans. In 1887, everyone born in 1866 was turning 21. Seems like random numbers and blabber, but in 1887, people were voting who were not alive during the Civil war. They may have heard stories and carried prejudices, but it was the downward decline of the Civil Wars great influence in the American populace.

2011 is 16 years removed from 1995; The year when those born in 1974 (the year after ‘Nam ended) tuned 21. Those folks are now starting to move into the political halls of Washington D.C. In fact, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is roughly 41. He was about 3 (and I assume not very worldly) when Vietnam ended. By the time he was 10, Reagan was in the White House and the enemy was the U.S.S.R. To someone not well versed in the trade of American History, Politics, and Culture this probably seems like a big collection of fun facts for a trivia game. But the truth is, both wars (Civil & Vietnam) were enduring milestones for the American people.

Now the generation that was born after the Big 3 (Civil War, Vietnam/Watergate, Civil Rights/Jim Crow) are taking hold of the country. As someone who fits the bill (I’m 1982), I already feel better about the future of the country. As I had said before, you just have to wait for these old people to die.” What I hadn’t accounted for was that they wouldn’t die quietly.

When Pat Buchanan said “we want to take our country back” at the RNC in 1992, many said it was the death knell of George H. W. Bush. What I heard (much later, I wasn’t watching the RNC when I was 9) was “we need to get rid of the Mexicans.” But what I’ve recently come to understand is that its not Mexican’s they ultimately want to get rid of, but the perception that we don’t need to get rid of Mexicans. Not specifically, but when people feel they’re losing the country, it really means their culture. Its hard to imagine the U.S. ever really going down. And for obvious reasons, we have no control over the actual landmass staying or going. But culturally, this is where folks stand. Once upon a time, everyone could get a job on a factory line, support a family, buy a house, and send their kids to college.

Today, there are no factory lines, divorce is rife, people stopped having kids, the house market is up in flames, college sends at least 3 Americans out of 10 to perennial debt. Not to mention less significant changes like Marriage. These days its an end cap to a successful life, not the beginning of one. This and the migration to larger cities has left many men to wait until their mid-30’s for marriage. People go to bed watching the Jersey Shore not Johnny Carson. The internet has blurred most lines, everything’s computerized, and we just stopped sending rockets to the Moon; a move that is so iconic in America’s dominance in the world and over our eternal enemy, the Soviets. Not even the Soviets are around anymore. They’ve been replaced by China who’s nullified our missile defense sheild by simply grinding us down through economics.

The problem starts simply. Once upon a time you could say a cultural norm and have it agreed upon by everyone at the bowling alley, pub, or workplace. Not only are those places disappearing, but you can’t be sure of anything anymore. And this is where the paranoia sets in. America wasn’t any better or worse before cell phones, reality TV, or iPods, we’ve just changed culturally overnight. To the old guard, this is frightening. They’ve woken up in a place that looks like home, but feels like Mars. To too many American’s, you get the impression that they feel as if they’ve landed on planet of the apes. Except instead of primates, you’ve just got racially mixed Americans running around with buds in their ears, staring into a brick in their hand, speaking to kids in India about something called a Processor, but it has nothing to do with food.

The good news is that the end is nigh, and the failure of certain institutions – institutions that were not sustainable – are returning America to some of its post-war norms anyway. Family means something wildly different today than it did in 1946, but more and more the elderly are moving in with one another for financial solvency. Retiring to Florida no longer works. The houses are too expensive, the loans don’t exist, the water has oil in it, and the Hurricane insurance is unaffordable.

But somewhere out there on the horizon is a new American norm. 9/11 was the defining moment of a generation. But children born after it are already 10. And since the killing of Bin Laden, like the defeat of Imperial Japan, its become less of a cultural flash point than it might otherwise have been. I don’t look forward gleefully to the passing of our forbearers. The Baby Boomers got us through some rough patches for sure. But the future for America looks incredibly bright when the sins of our fathers are finally put to rest with them.

The new lost generation

Ever since I got into a long discussion with a former boss of mine about how different generations work together (baby boomers, Gen X., millenials, ect.) I’ve paid close attention to the character traits of my own. Today, in the wake of Bin Laden’s death, I’m less proud and more concerned than I’ve ever been before. Let’s start from the start.

I was born in 1982. Whatever that makes me, that’s the vantage point I’ve been coming from. Lets call me a Gen Y. Since I was born, I, like my 80’s brothers, have been saturated with stances on emotion. If it wasn’t Care Bears teaching me to hug people, then it was G.I. Joe’s moral teaching at the end of the episode, or the near constant maxims that we ought to be “color blind” and respect diversity.

Those are all things I can ostensibly get behind, but it was literally beat over our heads. What I’ve seen first hand since then is a rebellion against that by a good majority of people my age. It was tissue rejection. I think subconsciously, many of us got to a point where we couldn’t handle, or didn’t want to ride the emotional roller coaster that is constantly checking in with our feelings. Can’t we just have some rules, go with those, and assume assholes exist? Not everything needs to be met with a chat to see where the other person is coming from.

Of course, some folks still think a warm spring days is a valid reason to cry. But I was proud in my position that my generation had rejected such ridiculous and illogical positions. It was apparent in every aspect of our culture. Our humor was more deadpan than previous generations. We laughed at the highly illogical (I still say Will Ferral films are nothing more than Mad Libs for adults.) Our generation, regardless of your politics, elected a man (Obama) who everyone feels is too a-emotional. Say what you will about him, but I think my generation wants that in a President more than going back to the red meat, wedge-issues of yesteryear. We also elected the Tea Party. The first real wave of libertarians; a group unafraid to slash the pentagon. A group more concerned with the budget than the abortion clinic.

Many a politician tried to put a band-aid on old divisive issues. Ours grew a callous. It was the first thing I ever really came to respect about my class. I graduated high school in 2001. Our generation went to fight a war after that, either with guns in the middle east, or with picket signs here at home. We now fight a horrible economic metldown and wonder what our children will have when they near 30. In the words of Jack Kennedy “the tourch has been passed to a new generation, born into war, tempered by a hard, and bitter peace.”

But today I’ve seen the ugly underbelly of the political coin that is the reject of emotion. It is disinterest and, to some degree, a lack of realization. I’ve always thought emotions were something to discuss with close friends or family, but never for public display. I take very few things seriously because I don’t think we need to sink into the quagmire of emotional diatribes. In short: I never saw a value in them. But now I’m starting to think theres a logical disconnect that comes with an a-emotional posture.

Some of my more liberal friends (I’m guessing here) have come out as wholly disinterested in what Bin Laden’s capture means for America, Democracy, and the globe. Its either no longer important, too little far too late, or it doesn’t simply justify the cost we’ve incurred over time. I’m not suggesting any of those positions are inherently wrong, but it does make me wonder what outcome they believe should have happened.

I’ve written before that academics need to be aware of reviewing a custom, or function (like government), deciding that its too flawed to bother discussing, and instead move on to create a new system that would never really apply to the real world in the first place. I read that in “Ideology” about Communism. Again, no ones suggesting my friends are communists (I’m not anyway), but its on par. The war didn’t go as planned, the results didn’t go as planned, and Bin Laden’s capture wasn’t even close. So rather than review our next step as a nation, we wholly reject it as all part of the same syndrome and wipe our hands clean. But as I’ve said before, change never comes from the outside. To simply wipe our hands clean is to leave the same old to its own devices. Making change means getting dirty.

My concerns come from a generation I thought would approach things from a sort of Brahmin cool. An interest in results nothing else. And not that Brooklyn-accented, job interview kind of results (“you know what I’m sayin? I mean I’m gunna show up and make moves and make this company profit cause that’s what I’m about”) but results that were born from a matter of facts. How could a generation reared on electronics not become a cyborg nation?

Unfortunately, they have. And rather than getting down to binary code and making changes, they’ve settled on “does not compute”, bugged out, and shutdown. What this means for a growing number of Gen Y’s and millennials is that we’re going to start arriving at a disenfranchised American voter. A whole 2 decades of, what will essentially look like 1996. What low turn out means in a Democracy is that only the hyper-engaged go to the polls. Only the hyper-partisan have a say. This is good for no one. What one can forsee happening is corruption arriving on the level of Harding and the Tea Pot Dome Scandal; A new oligarchy to breed new robber barons and corporate kickbacks. Corruption will drive toward you, even as a disinterested party and strike at the very moral fabric of your being. And then, like some spiritual singularity, as history often repeats itself, we’ll arrive back at wedge-issue politics. Screaming in the streets, Chicago in ’68. New summers of mercy, and more “the personal is political” that so damned the political system from 1964 until 1988.

I weep for a generation who has yet to fail me, but will undoubtedly unless course correction is made. I had dreams of a new class of Henry Cabot Lodge’s, Tom Reeds, and Abraham Lincolns. Instead we’re circulating back to the same old William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, and Glen Beck rhetoric. It’s a sad day for me, and a sadder future for the next generation.

EDIT: May 8th- Interesting article thats germane. http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/02_young_leaders_singer.aspx

Gary Johnson 2012

So I just finished up watching Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, speak with Dylan Ratigan about his candidacy. Whats most thrilling about this is not the idea that he could win - if he does I promise to shit rainbows - but that issues will have to be discussed because of his presence in the primary.

Think back to 2008 when Ron Paul, then a seemingly crazy old man to the non-political, dominated the political discussion because he not only took the outlying position on the war and monetary policy that, and this is the important part, he could back up with factual arguments. Go back and watch how Ron Paul verbally dope-slapped the likes of McCain, Romney, and more importantly Giuliani.

But the war is no longer a Republican issue (unless they win) and this year, with debt being the major issue on the table I'd love to hear about a few of the largest, undiscussed financial burdens in America: The War on Drugs, and the State Prison System.

The two issues are intertwined, and with Johnson having been an elected official with a platform plank of legalizing marijuana, some incarnation of the issue is going to have to be discussed. Now if I'm being practical, he's going to be dismissed as a lunatic and routinely booed, but provided he comes back with the math and the facts like Paul did, and survives the Iowa caucuses (where I hope he doesn't make a play), then these issue may be forced to be addressed.

The problem with addressing them for most candidates is that for too long this was an issue no one had to deal with because it wasn't ever talked about. The other issue is, 4 of the suspected GOP candidates were governors who are going to have stats from the past they might have to address from the position of spending issues. According to CommonDreams.org "Americans spend $60 billion a year to imprison 2.2 million people — exceeding any other nation...with a 60% recidivism rate." Given the flatness of that last figure, I'm guessing its been rounded.

CD also cites from a report filed in 2006 about the safety and abuse in American prisons. The reports website says the following:

On any given day, 2.2 million people are incarcerated in the United States, and over the course of a year, many millions spend time in prison or jail. 750,000 men and women work in correctional facilities. The annual cost: more than 60 billion dollars. Yet within three years, 67 percent of former prisoners will be rearrested and 52 percent will be re-incarcerated. At this moment, the effectiveness of America's approach to corrections has the attention of policy makers at all levels of government and in both political parties. The Commission and its report, Confronting Confinement, make a unique contribution to this timely national discussion by connecting the most serious problems and abuses inside jails and prisons with the health and safety of our communities.

The bottom line is cost. And while many will cite the 10th Amendment as a shield, or say this is a states-rights issue, the hard reality is that the laws that put these individuals, in many cases, into prison in the first place are federal laws. If these candidates become targets of the Johnson onslaught, the only defense will be to say "that's a states rights issue, so I'm going to strike down the Federal Laws and let the states handle things."

The gamble there is 2-fold: The Tea Party will be listening, and they won't let the issue die. These same folks have been after the Fed since Ross Perot tipped them off in 1992 or Pat Buchanan in 1988. The other problem is the general election and the nullification forces, armed with the financial ammunition are going to actually demand these arguments stay in play, and the opposition forces waiting at the gates in 2016 will be waiting there in 2014, prodding the electorate with those reminders.

Remembering Reagan*

*Transferred from the general blog. Originally posted on Feruary 2nd of this year.




I've curbed much of my political ranting for a shorter, more frequent Twitter posting (@lowbrowpolitics) but if this blog is going to be what I'm thinking, I can't quit politicing for good. This month, Time Magazine is remembering Reagan. The cover would have you believe its a big comparison between He and President Obama, but its only one article. The rest is in reference to the centennial.

While most of the writing is political, his Daughters piece is deeply personal, and whatever you think of the man, its worth a read...

Several years into my father's journey down the narrowing road of Alzheimer's, when he was still going out for walks, I looped my arm through his one afternoon and walked with him along a leafy street near my parents' home. A few people recognized him, waved and called out, "Hello, Mr. President" and "God bless you." He smiled and waved back. Then he looked at me, confused, and asked, "Do I know them?"

No, Dad, I said. "They recognized you and wanted to say hello." He looked even more perplexed. "But how do they know me?"

I already knew his memory of being President had been extinguished. He remembered ice skating as a boy and swimming in the Rock River in summer but not his impact on the country and the world. I didn't want to add to his confusion. "They've seen you walking here," I told him. He smiled, and his eyes lit up. "That's very sweet of them," he said. "They're nice people."

Moments like that revealed what was most essential about my father — his graciousness, his kindness toward others, his gratitude and his humility. Even at the end, Alzheimer's didn't kill those qualities, although it killed a lot.

I often imagine what it would be like if my father were still here to mark his 100th birthday, if Alzheimer's hadn't clawed away years, possibilities, hopes. What would he think of all the commemorations and celebrations?

Basically a humble man, he'd be embarrassed, I suspect, although certainly flattered. He would cover his emotions with a joke — probably something about George Burns' living to 100 and how he just couldn't let George get all the glory for making it that far. I'm sure he'd be disappointed in the meanness of politics these days yet amused by all the politicians trying to adhere themselves to his legacy, even aiming to be "the next Ronald Reagan." He'd probably suggest, with a twinkle in his eye, that they should figure out who they are as individuals and be the best at that.

But most of all, I imagine spending time with him as a daughter — and his allowing the residue of my rebellious years and the hurt I caused him to blow away like dust, maybe with a bit of humor, since I did manage to snag his attention by being the bad girl. I'd like to ask him if he was ever really fooled by me.

I'd also like to ask him about the nearsighted boy he once was, whose father frequently disappeared on drinking binges so severe he'd pass out, often miles from home. Maybe my father would finally open up to me about the uncertainty and the waiting ... and the fear.

Yet he had no fear, and I wish more than anything I could sit with him by a window in the dying light of day and ask him about that. How did you come from where you came from and learn to be so confident? How did you learn to trust so completely in your faith that fear didn't stand a chance? I want to tell him I remember the nights when I was a child and he traced the constellations for me, showing me Pegasus and Orion. I want to tell him that even though light-years came between us later on, I never stopped believing he hung the moon.

My father's body lies in a stone tomb high on a hill. People walk by, pause, think their own thoughts about him and move on, back to their own lives. I can never move on. He is everywhere. I know you think I mean publicly, especially now that he would have been 100 years old. And in part, I do mean that. But what I really mean is, he lives in me on the edge of dreams. He lives in the regrets that burden me and the sweet memories that keep me afloat. There was a moment, midway through the Alzheimer's years, when I was leaving my parents' house and I said to him, "Bye. I love you." His eyes opened wide in surprise and he said, "Well, thank you. Thank you so much." He had no idea who I was. He was startled and typically gracious about another human being's telling him she loved him. I don't know if I will ever reach that level of grace, but I'm grateful for having been born to a man who did.

Until the last three years of his life, when he became bedridden, he carried in his pocket a coin that says "Let go and let God." I keep it now in a box on my dresser. I don't know where he got it, but I'm guessing someone handed it to him when he was out walking and he looked at the message on it and thought of how lovely it was and how he related to it. Every day after that, he put it in his pocket — as a talisman, perhaps, but also to remind him of a stranger's kindness.

He was not a perfect man. He was not a perfect father. But he tried to reach higher, to understand what God wanted of him. He was a unique person who carved out a unique place in history. I sat beside him as he died. And now he sits inside my heart as I live my life, without him but with him.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2044468,00.html#ixzz1CosN8T5Z

A father is an interesting thing in America. You often hear that people weren't close to their father, and the relationship was never close. But they have a way of loving after they're gone, as if their echo in history lingers, holding us best through a post mortem example, as if their presence is an heirloom which is handed down and carried on until we pass on ourselves, and pass along our small spin on an otherwise enduring legacy.

Immigrant Waves*

*Transferring this one from the general blog. Originally posted on August 13th of last year.



Is history repeating itself on the other side of the country?

In 1845, about 15 years prior to the Civil War, a potato famine hit Ireland so badly that anyone who had the ability left for greener shores. In many, many cases that meant New York and Boston.

The civil war had yet to be fought, so there were no immigration laws, the radical republicans had not yet taken the Congress, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments weren’t proposed yet. For all intents and purposes they’d become Americans by showing up here, but the WASP Ascendancy barely recognized them. They were not considered white; their Infant Mortality Rate was astronomical leading one Census worker to comment, “The Irish were literally born to die.” Signs reading “No Irish Need Apply” were regularly hung, and they lived, in most cases, in tenement housing; cramped, poorly built, structurally dangerous, and lacked maintenance.

But that was 165 years ago. Today we don’t question any man of Irish decendency as to whether or not he’s white. This may or may not have to do with an influx of other, darker races, but probably has more to do with how wide spread they’ve become. Today, give or take a few thousand, roughly 36 million Americans can trace their heritage back to Ireland.

And while they clung to their own cultural identity, they embraced with open arms (politically if not literally) the other immigrants waves of Italians and Eastern Europeans to form a permanent political majority for their political party. I am purposely not saying “Democrats” there because history shows their choice was less platform and more reaction. The Protestant Establishment in the former colonies was fierce, ruthless, and apathetic to the plight of the new immigrant classes. They forged themselves with a then dormant party and used it like a shield to take up the problems and struggles of the class. They did so then because the Republican Party then gave them no options to join their ranks.

In a seemingly “bizarre-o” world turn of events, Phoenix is the new Boston.

Ignore the conditions listed before. I don’t know that its wise to try and compare how the Irish lived then (two centuries ago) and how Latino’s live today. The Country is different, the regulations on housing, medical care, the social programs are, well first of all they exist. There was no such philosophy let alone law in the 1840’s that dictated how anything really had to be done. But politics isn’t figures on a spreadsheet, its perception.

The growing perception is, through talk of walls, mandated English, “anchor babies”, and SB1070 – as well as Amending the 14th Amendment – that the Republican Party are the WASPs to the Latino’s Irish.

If you’re following this furor, then I’m sure you’ve heard about the numbers. Fastest growing demographic, a birthrate that’s set to dislodge white people as being larger than all other minorities combined. (Note: Whites will still be a majority, they just won’t beat, as a group, all other races combined). But those are logic-tactics. You can almost hear, in a very avuncular tone, the father figure saying, “you’d better be careful now.”

The problem is not votes; the problem is dignity. And it isn’t American, its global and historical. Nations and peoples can be defeated, but if they are humiliated, they will tell their children of the vicious opression that faced them as they came to America, passed down like camp-fire horror stories that become a cemented reality unified with cultural identity.

Ask any eastern Frenchmen about the Nazi’s. As any Jewish Immigrant for that matter. Ask Southerners how they feel about General Sherman, or Iranians how they felt about the Shah. Civility and Diplomacy cannot be measured in the safety it provides the future.

Last night I watched Charlie Wilson’s War. If you haven’t seen it, you should do yourself the favor. But in it, the Afghani’s make a point to tell the Western World that they do not want food, or medicine. They want weapons. They want to defeat the Imperial Soviets and they want their land back. Its hard to imagine a better illustration of what dignity is than to mention a people who have almost nothing, living in rocks, and tribal villages and showing how all they want is to be left to their own devices. It’s saddening on a level one can’t imagine to have so little and be deprived of it still.

The Latino Community, prior to the dust up over SB1070, had two major concerns when it came to politics; Jobs and Education. Say what you will but those could go to either party, and it suggests that they came here not for themselves but for their children. Marco Rubio was on television two days ago echoing that sentiment when he responded to the recent moronic comments by Sen. Harry Reid.

The Latino community wants to be here, and they want to be American. The Irish still have their parades, the Italians, Polish, and the Portuguese their festivals. They still hand their language down to children. Mexican’s, Guatemalans, Cubans, et. al are doing nothing no less different than what the immigrant classes of the past have done, and unfortunately for them, that means engaging in the same struggles and legislative battles of every class before them.