tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-82029932024-03-13T12:56:58.192-07:00Michael E. BerumenExcerpts from Michael E. Berumen's book, "Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business," as well as writings on other topics, including animal rights, George Bush, capital punishment, Churchill, economics, God, liberalism, religion, philosophy and science.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-1141081172372627812013-03-16T15:54:00.000-07:002016-10-17T15:22:37.996-07:00Book Review of Do No Evil<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: black;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b style="background-color: black;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;">The following review is from <i>Kirkus</i></span><span style="font-size: large;">, the nation's premier book reviewer:</span></span></b></div>
<span style="background-color: black;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b> <br /> </b></span><b><span style="font-size: small;">"An effective integration of ethics, morality and business principles. In a logical progression, Berumen offers a historical review of major t</span><span style="font-size: small;">hinkers in philosophy and ethics, including John Locke, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and many others. He develops a framework for universal morality in which moral imperatives--rather than being matters of subjective opinion--immutable. The basis for universal morality, however, must be the avoidance of death and suffering, not just the general pursuit of good--"Being good is not good enough to be moral." The author also dissects current ethical debates, including extensive discussions, of social justice, animal rights and the environment. He explores the free-market economy, acknowledging what he believes to be the superiority of capitalism over socialism--"My theory shows that capitalism is not only ethically permissible, but also that socialism is more difficult to justify on ethical grounds"--and he highlights the principles of individual ownership and property as anchor points in his argument. He balances his argument by noting that the rights to property must be limited, and that morality provides a check on unrestrained capitalist pursuits. In the final section, the author elucidates the many layers of the managerial and corporate environment, deftly analyzing the fiduciary, social and moral relationships between the players in a corporation.</span></b></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: red; font-size: small;"><b style="background-color: black;"><br />
</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: black; color: red; font-size: small;"><b>A fresh, convincing ethical examination. </b>"</span><br />
<span style="background-color: black;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: black; color: red; font-size: small;">Selected Links for Reviews/Purchase: </span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: black; color: red; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: red; font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.kirkusreviews.com/kirkusreviews/discoveries/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002076263" style="background-color: black;">Kirkus Discoveries</a></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: black; color: red; font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Do-No-Evil-Applications-Economic/dp/0595280013/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270430570&sr=1-1">Buy and Reviews at Amazon</a> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: black;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: black; color: red; font-size: small;"><a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Do-No-Evil/Michael-E-Berumen/e/9780595280018/?itm=1&USRI=do+no+evil#TABS">Buy and Reviews at Barnes and Noble</a> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: black;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: black;"><span style="color: red;"><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=nsF8WRpEpicC&printsec=frontcover&dq=do+no+evil&ei=ejy5S6jKEpTAzQT-jL0x&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false">Google Books--Selected Pag</a><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=nsF8WRpEpicC&printsec=frontcover&dq=do+no+evil&ei=ejy5S6jKEpTAzQT-jL0x&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false">es</a></span></span> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-59831306999252191032013-03-15T23:57:00.000-07:002019-09-21T05:49:29.216-07:00I Love Rock 'n' Roll <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Reprinted from Liberal Resistance 4 August 2019</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: x-large; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: x-large; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>I Love Rock 'n' Roll</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Its Origins, Nature, and Value</b></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;"><b>by Michael Edward Berumen (July 2019)</b></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Rock
‘n’ Roll has many fathers and mothers---and there are many more opinions about
who started it all. It is the subject matter of many an animated conversation. So
naturally, I begin with my observations on its origins. One comes across sundry
learned arguments about how the likes of Chuck Berry and Little Richard were
the major architects of Rock ‘n’ Roll, and how it is an outgrowth of gospel and
rhythm and blues. There are going to be inevitable references to the influence
of country artists such as Hank Williams and Carl Perkins. And at some point, someone
will mention the importance of disc jockeys such as Alan Freed and Dewey
Phillips, who introduced and promoted the music in its early days, and of all-the
important behind the scenes people such as the famed record producer, Sam
Phillips, who discovered and groomed and polished the stylings of several of Rock’s
most famous early interpreters. And of course, considerable attention will be devoted
to the latter’s greatest find, Elvis Presley, who may not have “invented” the
form, but certainly was a principal who packaged it all up, added his unique style
to it, and was the first to make it go viral across the world. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">But,
one might reasonably ask, who influenced all of them? To what extent, for
example, did Howlin’ Wolf influence Little Richard; and, in turn, how did artists
such as the Mississippi Sheiks and Ma Rainey influence Howlin’ Wolf? Rufus
Payne and Jimmie Rogers exerted considerable influence over Hank Williams, and
who, in turn, were their influences? Undoubtedly, the Carter Family, the first family of country music, would have been a profound influence on guitar-based rockabilly music. Surely the great maker of the Devil’s
music, Robert Johnson, via his equally great apostle, Muddy Waters, would have affected
the stylings of a young Chuck Berry. We know the gospel music sung at the
African-American church young Elvis attended affected him profoundly. Presumably,
the parishioners’ styles were handed down from one generation to the next and from
neighbor to neighbor. What influence might popular recording artists among African Americans at the time, such as Mahalia
Jackson or Sister Rosetta Tharpe, have had on those parishioners or on young Elvis? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">We
must not leave out the fact that some gospel favorites were composed by people of
very different backgrounds, such as the classic “How Great Thou Art,” composed by
a Swede, Carl Boberg, or the gospel standard, “Amazing Grace,” a creation of an Englishman
and erstwhile slave-ship captain, John Newton. We might also ask, how did gospel and the blues intertwine
with the day-to-day lives of African Americans in various regions of the South, and how did various European and Native American musical forms that they came in contact with affect their music? </span><span style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">There is a long history of interaction between Native Americans and African Americans from the early 17th century, and both dance and music were important in the lives of indigenous peoples. </span><span style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">Surely slaves overheard music from the nearby white churches and in the houses of the people who enslaved them. They were prohibited from learning to read, but they had the freedom to sing, dance, and they learned to play instruments or fashioned their own based on those found in their distant homelands. Given the available options, it seems reasonable to assume that music occupied an even greater percentage of the small amount of time available for recreation. It was something that could even be used to pass the time during the drudgery of work.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">How
and to what extent was the music found in Appalachian hollows and the backcountry of the Deep South influenced by the early Irish, Scottish, French,
and British settlers? How did <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">canción
ranchera</i> music of Mexico, its precursors, and local Native American music influence
musicians in the southwest, strands that would find their way into the work of
artists such as the Arizonan of</span> <span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Paiute
Indian heritage, Marty Robbins, and the Dust Bowl music of migrants from places
such as Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma that would inform the Bakersfield sounds
of the likes of Buck Owens and Merle Haggard? What were the effects of Spanish
music on the peoples of the Caribbean, many of whom were from various places in
Sub-Saharan Africa, and to what extent were these Spanish styles, themselves,
affected by the Roman conquerors of Iberia millennia ago, or the Germanic
tribes that often invaded the area and, later on, by Roma or Moorish peoples? And
how did these Caribbean styles affect the music in the southern states, given
the proximity and cross-pollination among these cultures, and particularly in
port cities such as New Orleans? How, in turn, was predominately southern music later transformed by inner-city life in places such as Chicago, New York, St. Louis, and Los Angeles after the great migrations that occurred immediately following the Civil War and again later in the 20th century? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Might
we also give Marconi, Edison, Tesla, and other inventors of technology their just due for having developed the means of recording, amplifying, and transmitting the
music, indeed, even modifying the way it sounds? How might things have been
different had the phonograph or the radio not been invented, or had the
transistor and integrated circuitry not transformed sound engineering and production techniques and capabilities, not to mention putting miniature sound devices
into the hands of teenagers around the globe? And of course, the invention and
continual modification of the musical instruments, themselves, have had an obvious influence on
music over millennia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">However,
technology is not the only thing that has a reciprocal relationship with music
in terms of stimulating creativity, and it is not even the most obvious or
ancient one. Rhythmic sound, cadences, beats all inform our physical movements,
and our movements inform them. Dance styles arise from the music, and the dance
styles themselves inform the possibilities of infinite combinations of notes.
Take the Cuban cha-cha. The feet move in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">cha-cha-cha </i>pattern, which itself informs the patterns of how a
composer will conceive and construct sounds from various instruments. Or
consider the physicality of the Spanish flamenco with its complex footwork; the
sound of the dance itself, of the shoes against floorboards can inspire the
handiwork of the composer of guitar music. More to the matter at hand, there’s
the dance every teen of my era knew, the twist, where the way and speed with
which we swivel our hips are informed by the rhythms of the music, and where it
is obvious that visualizing our movements inspires the composer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">One
could go on and on with these kinds of questions, observations, and analyses. But
it soon becomes interminably pedantic and similar to otiose theological
discussions over matters such as the “true” nature of the Trinity, devolving
into a species of medieval scholasticism, the kind of disquisition whereby reason
turns against itself counting the proverbial number of angels on a pinhead. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Here
is my point: the very question of who “invented” any particular genre of music
is one that can never be answered fully or satisfactorily without also tracing its
multifarious threads to the first human ancestor to have hummed a tune while
gathering berries, to whoever first put a melody to words, or to whoever noticed
that thumping on an object created a beat pleasing to the ear. Often enough,
there is an agenda behind ascribing the invention of a musical tradition to any
one person or group of people. It is an exercise that most often occupies those
with little or no knowledge of musicology or anthropology, and whose
predetermined objective is to claim ownership of something. But music is not a
piece of property that can be fenced off in quite the same way as a plot of
ground or owned in a similar manner.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">What
we can do is identify key innovators who make use of the various musical and
technological ingredients that obtain at a given time, and who discover new constituents
to add to the world’s repertoire, combining them in various ways with the old to
produce even newer forms that are destined to inspire yet other innovations. Such
people are identifiable, but as Isaac Newton said about himself in relation to physics,
they stand on the shoulders of many who went before them. In music, the past is
always prologue, and finding a point of origin for every strand of inspiration is
nearly akin to grasping hold of water.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">There’s
much we will never know, of course. For example, who first noticed how sound,
rhythm, and cadence inspire certain bodily movements? Who discovered that air
could be used to make mellifluous or orotund sounds when forced through natural
objects such as a hollow stick or a seashell? Who was the first to create an
instrument that was not produced by nature? Who, for example, designed the
first simple, stringed instruments? We know the Egyptians used them thousands
of years ago, but it seems likely they originated in even earlier
civilizations? Who first used symbols to represent notes on a page? The Greeks certainly
analyzed the nature of harmonics as early as the 5<sup>th</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup>
centuries BCE with the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">systema ametabolon</i>;
but did other civilizations have a conception of such things even before them
or concurrently in other places? One thing that we do know is that humankind
originated in Africa, and it is, therefore, an equally safe bet that music also originated
there. That should settle a “who invented music” question: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">our African ancestors</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">We
also can assert with confidence that all musical forms since the earliest
humans were adopted and then modified as one person, tribe, or clan encountered
music from another person, tribe, or clan, thereby creating a trajectory of
musical development that expanded with a geometric shape in a multitude of
variations as humankind spread across the globe, and in a process that
continues apace today among cultures and subcultures in every locale, from
person to person, house to house, block to block, and city to city, nation to
nation, and so on over the world. In this manner, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all</i></b> music was and
continues to be “appropriated”––to use a now commonplace pejorative used rather
too loosely by “woke” critics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Some
would have us believe that musical forms are proprietary and belong only to a particular
group, as though it emerged endogenously and fully-formed like Athena from the
head of Zeus. Others would say that once one adopts a style of music, Heaven
forbid that one should experiment with another or dare abandon it for a
different tradition, for that is apostasy of the highest order. It is an absurd
criticism that one hears from the Puritans of musical rectitude. It is not a new
thing, at all. Classicists said it about jazz artists, and acoustic mavens said it about electrified folkies, old country lovers say it about new country,
and hard rockers say it about popish rock. But artists ought to be free to
explore and move along a nearly infinite spectrum of musical and production
possibilities without fear of opprobrium or being accused of heresy. Freedom of
expression is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sine qua non</i> of art,
whereas pandering to orthodoxy and being enslaved to the preferences of the crowd
each constitutes a grievous sin against it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The
fact is this: all music is based on what has transpired before it, and it is
built on a manifold of borrowed influences. What is more, music has an
inextricable relationship with technology, both in its more primitive and
modern forms, and technology that is adopted and modified to suit the purposes
at hand. Hard and fast bright lines that separate musical genres are impossible
to draw. There is always borrowing from and bleeding onto other forms within
every major classification of music. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">It
is easy to show that Rock ‘n’ Roll as a genre is informed by gospel, rhythm and
blues, and country; but it is equally influenced by classical (e.g., symphonic
music used by the Beatles and Moody Blues); jazz (e.g., as adopted by Jimi
Hendrix and The Zombies); the blues (e.g., Rolling Stones); Eastern traditions
(e.g., use of the sitar by The Byrds); folk (e.g., Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell);
skiffle (e.g., Rory Storm & the Hurricanes and Billy Bragg); and flamenco
(e.g., Gipsy Kings). And each of those influential forms, in turn, has had a
host of other influential antecedents. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">It
should be noted, too, that Rock itself has influenced other musical forms since
the 1950s, especially more strictly “pop” forms and modern country music, but
also even modern orchestral music, jazz, and certainly hip hop in its cadences
and beats and with its frequent sampling of Rock recordings. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Also,
it is certainly worth observing that Rock both absorbs and informs the broader
culture and art outside of the music itself, including fine arts, fashion,
language, theatrical performances, sexual mores, dance, and behavior more
generally. I would venture to assert that Rock's influence on culture has been
more pervasive than any other popular musical form, even more than jazz and
swing music, which dominated popular music in western society for about 30
years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">So,
who invented Rock ‘n’ Roll? Thousands upon thousands of men and women over a
great many generations and in a great many places. When did it become Rock ‘n’
Roll? When someone first called it that and someone else repeated it. The
question is simply not answerable in a way that will satisfy those who must
have a first cause for things, any more than the so-called “first cause
argument” satisfies philosophers who inevitably will ask what caused the
unmoved mover, which is to say, “what caused the first cause?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">What
is it about Rock ‘n’ Roll with its several derivatives (alternative, metal,
grunge, pop-rock, psychedelic, etc.) that defines it as a distinguishable class
or genre of music? One might suggest that it is having a snare-driven backbeat
or a guitar or two. But there’s plenty of Rock music without drums, e.g.,
Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and Deep Purple’s “Smoke on the Water,” just
to name two. A great deal of early Rock was more driven by keyboards and horns.
Guitars played a comparatively minor role for the likes of Fats Domino, Jerry
Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison, James Brown, Dion, the Coasters, and Phil Spector.
There are even bands today, including so-called heavy metal bands, that don’t
use a guitar, or that rely on just a bass guitar for strings. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">It
is true that most Rock artists since the mid-fifties, beginning with Chuck
Berry, Elvis, Buddy Holly, and others, have used guitars–––and if they were not
used by the principal vocalist, they were used by a back-up musician who
represented an essential role in the performance. Rock artists have used
driving backbeats as major ingredients to their artistry, certainly before, but
perhaps especially since the Beatles, with the snare and kick drums also as
standout instruments. But these instruments are not peculiar to Rock and they
are used extensively in other genres, as well. It was a central instrument in country long before rock as we know it appeared on the scene. So what, then, is it that more uniquely
defines Rock, if anything at all? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Whether
or not it is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">unique</i>, using the word in
its strictest, “only one” sense, I submit that there are three major characteristics
embedded in the musical styles of Rock and its derivatives, both sonically and
lyrically, and that at least one and often enough all three will be observed in
the various iterations and styles of Rock. I am referring to <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="font-weight: bold;">Youthfulness, Angst, </i>and</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> <i>Rebellion</i></b>. In
turn, each of these can all be encapsulated within one overarching concept and word,
namely, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Attitude</i></b>. Rock is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all </i>about
attitude. That is its essence, I believe–––what defines it–––and to borrow what
Justice Potter said about pornography when he saw it, I <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">know</i> it when I hear it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">I
shall now briefly describe what I mean using the three foregoing attitudes to
illustrate my point. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Youthfulness</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"> is nearly always an attribute of Rock ‘n’ Roll. Brain
science teaches what we’ve always known, and that is that young people <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">feel</i> more deeply and they act more
impulsively. Our senses are at their height of receptivity when we are young,
and our emotions are at their peak response to external inputs and also to the kinds
of interior thoughts that most often beset young folks. Love, fear, swagger, rage,
excitement, joy, sorrow, self-consciousness, awkwardness, jealousy, and just
about any emotion or circumstance one can imagine. When we are young, they are
more intensely felt. The central control of emotions and impulse, our amygdala,
is not fully developed until we are in our twenties, and the amygdalae of males
develop more slowly than females. For most of us, age has a way of calming or
containing our feelings, and they are increasingly less likely to instigate the
kinds of impulsive responses that often accompany youth. But they do not ever
entirely disappear, and shadows of their intensity from the past can be
summoned with the sounds of music. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Music
has always captivated the young and it is obvious why: music brings out an
emotional response, and the young are especially attuned to emotions. It is no
coincidence that some of the greatest works in music were created by relatively young
artists throughout history. Mozart, for example, composed many great pieces in
his teens and twenties. But it is fair to say that Rock was especially
entrancing to youth when it arrived on the scene, for it spoke the emotional language
of the young perhaps more clearly than ever before. It was loud, intense,
dramatic, rousing, sensitive, bumptious, garrulous, sexual, and it inspired unrestrained
erotic and sexual bodily movements even more than most other forms of dance. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">It
is no coincidence that many older people are especially oriented to the music popular when they came of age, for as I have previously averred, that is the
time in our lives when we feel most intensely and passionately about, well,
just about everything, and the limbic imprint music leaves on us remains powerful over the years as a kind of musical engram. Thus, it is
not at all surprising that my elders preferred the big band sounds of Glenn
Miller and Artie Shaw over the Beatles or Rolling Stones, while today’s youth tend to prefer
Nicki Minaj or Greta van Fleet to the hitmakers of my generation. However, with
that said, it is not at all uncommon to see older folk taken in by current Rock
or its several derivatives when they are exposed to it, sometimes in a format
that is more countrified, for example, as with the music of Keith Urban, or
more pop-oriented music, such as Taylor Swift’s or Katy Perry’s. It puts them
in touch with their prior selves, which never entirely disappears from our consciousness. By and large, though, elders stick with the music of their generation or with music that is like it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Newer music that can broadly be classified as Rock will bring out a kind of
youthfulness in older people when they give it a chance. I have paid attention
to what the young listen to over the years, and throughout, I have found there
is much about newer music to enjoy or even love. It does not occupy the same space or have the same emotional impact on me the music of my youth did, but when I analyze its lyrics and the musical composition, I know it is every bit as good as most of what preceded it and it is very satisfying to me. Consequently, as a
characteristic, Youthfulness as it pertains to Rock does not suggest that it is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">only</i> for the young, but rather that it is inspired by the penetrating
feelings most associated with youth, granting it is more of a memory of how
we felt as we age, but one that music, and especially Rock music, helps us to recollect
more vividly, and even to feel a bit of the old intensity, even if it is only fleeting.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Angst</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"> has many variations, but its essential features are
characterized by a kind of generalized feeling of anxiety and dread. Anxiety
entails apprehension and nervousness, whereas dread consists of fearfulness and
trepidation. Angst occurs when there is despair or despondency over things that
lie beyond our control. The feeling can be found in matters of love, politics,
race, environment, or any number of specific things, or it can be non-specific,
a feeling that just overwhelms us without a particular object. These emotions
are not uncommon among the young, in particular, and especially as they face
the unknown future that lies ahead of them. Such feelings can arise at any age,
of course, though on average their intensity will diminish with age and they
are less likely to compel us to act upon them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Rock
music often evinces angst, and it even plays a central role in entire sub-genres
of Rock, such as the punk sounds of the Sex Pistols or Seattle grunge of bands
such as Nirvana, not to mention the more blues-based Rock of the early Rolling
Stones. But angst also finds its way into mainstream Rock in the tunes such as Crosby,
Stills Nash & Young’s politically charged “Ohio,” written in response to
the tragedy at Kent State in 1970; Cream’s plaintive lament in “White Room”; Buffalo
Springfield’s “For What it’s Worth,” inspired by the arrests of protestors
demonstrating against a curfew and loitering on the Sunset Strip, and the more non-specific
angst expressed in Jimi Hendrix’s “Purple Haze.” It can be heard in the
lovelorn tunes of artists as different as Janis Ian in the 1960s and Avril
Lavigne among contemporary rock artists, and even in the emotion-laden bubblegum
Rock appealing to people in their early teen years or even younger. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Rock
speaks to the kind of anxiousness that we can feel about unrequited or
unreciprocated love, or of jealousy, each occupying a large chunk of romantic
songs associated with Rock; the darker forces that we must face in the world
such as war, racial hatred or––and especially in the more recent music of the
Me Too era––misogyny; or just a more generalized kind of despair, the kind
expressed in songs such as the Stones’ “Paint it Black,” a feeling of dread
that youth seem especially prone to experiencing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><i>Rebellion </i></span></b><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">represents a revolt against authority, legitimate or
otherwise––raging against the machine, the man, our parents, social conditions,
conformity, orthodoxy, constraint, rules, chastity, and expectations. Rebellion
is fundamental to Rock ‘n’ Roll music. From the day Little Richard simpered
across the stage with mascara and Elvis lustily shook his pelvis; to when Jim
Morrison refused to change the line, “Girl we couldn't get much higher” when
the Doors did “Light My Fire” live on <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Ed Sullivan Show</i>; to Portugal the Man’s anti-religious screed, “Modern
Jesus,”–––rebellion has been an essential part of Rock’s nature and it is an important reason for its longevity, for there’s always something or someone
against whom to rebel. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The
raw sexuality of early Rock was purposeful and deliberate in setting parents
everywhere on edge with its primal masculinity and overtly coquettish
femininity on full display. This aspect of Rock has never really gone away,
though it has been amply punctuated by more saccharine tunes, and has been
since the early days when the likes of Pat Boone and Bobby Vee mollified the
orthodox with more innocuous tunes. But make no mistake: Rock is very much
about sex: wanting it, seeking it, and having it. And that most certainly is a
rebellion against what most parents want their children to be doing or what
moral scolds of all ages prefer to be hidden away and not mentioned. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The
protest folk-Rock of the 60s by Bob Dylan and others questioned authority and orthodoxy,
themes that would soon infuse more mainstream music. Then the sounds of
psychedelia in bands like the Jefferson Airplane veered into mysticism and
invited us to expand our minds, and drug usage often represented the subtext. The punk rock of the 70s said “fuck you” to the world, and the glitz, big hair, and the androgyny of the 80s said, “look at me, I’m <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not
</i>you.” Rebellion came back full force with the Rock-influenced rap of groups
like NWA in the late 80s and early 90s declaiming against police brutality in
songs such as “Fuck the Police,” and then, after a seemingly interminable period
of the pre-pubescent calm of cutesy pop, glee club vocalizing, and lullaby-style music
in the mainstream during the 90s and early 2000s, where hitting high notes was esteemed
more than musical composition and originality, artists come-a-roaring against bigotry
in its various forms in anthems such as Miley Cyrus’ “Mother’s Daughter.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Attitude</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">. In sum, attitude is what defines Rock ‘n’ Roll. It
encapsulates all that is important about it. Whether it is soft, hard, metal,
acoustic, electric, or pop-rock, it is all about the <i>attitude</i> that makes it
what it is. There are some common elements to be found in the way the music is
composed and conveyed, to be sure; however, none are especially unique to Rock. More central are
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">way</i> it is presented and the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">intention</i> behind it, what it is meant to
evoke, and then, the feeling it actually <i>does</i> evoke, which is to say, the
attitude is in the denotation and the attitude is in the connotation, and the
denoted and connoted attitudes consist of one or more of what is evinced by <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Youthfulness</i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Angst</i>, and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rebellion</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Why
does Rock ‘n’ Roll matter? I will tell you why: it matters because it is the
music that can make us feel most alive and young. It is the music that gets us </span><span style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">up and
out of our chairs and obliges us to desire things and to behave a certain way,
whether it is wanting sex, driving a car fast, bobbing our heads, drumming on
the table, cutting a rug, or in the immortal words of Howard Beale, “Go to your
windows. Open them and stick your head out and yell: 'I'm as mad as hell and
I'm not gonna take this anymore!'” It motivates, invigorates, energizes, sexualizes,
challenges, informs, and reforms. It puts you in touch with your younger self, your inner and primordial lizard brain, and it lets you burst forth unchained from
stifling convention. To borrow from English rock star, Billy Idol, Rock embodies "The Rebel Yell." </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">There’s
music to calm you; music to waltz by; music to fall to sleep to; music to
entertain; music to make one reverential; and music to be sentimental to–––these
are all good and worthy of appreciation. However, no other musical form does
quite as much and does so in as many ways as Rock to express our unfettered id
and our primal nature. It is a release that no other form duplicates. Like other good musical forms, rock lyrics tell a story. But with the backbeat driving the narrative, they also make you feel more intensely. It is bold
and insolent. It subsumes defiance when we are loving or lovelorn, telling
others to go fuck themselves when they need to be told to do so, or when we are driving
home the unpleasant realities about the society in which we live. Rock enlivens
our potential energy and makes it kinetic. It is an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">attitude</i> that seeks to rouse us from somnolence and gives us the power
to face the day, come what may. We will always need that. And, therefore, by
any other name or description, we will always need Rock ‘n’ Roll. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">###<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Michael Berumen is a retired CEO and a published author on
diverse topics including economics, mathematics, music, politics, and
philosophy. He has lectured to civic, academic, and business audiences
internationally, and testified before the US Congress and local legislative and
regulatory bodies as an expert witness on health insurance reform. He has
served on various boards of directors. Among other publications, he is the
author of the book <i>Do No Evil: Ethics
with Applications to Economic Theory and Business.</i> An Army veteran,
aviator, kung fu sifu, outdoorsman, music lover, former juvenile delinquent,
CSUEB and Stanford alum, and longtime Californian, he and his wife retired to
the northern Colorado countryside. He plays around with the piano and guitar.
He still takes on speaking engagements on a limited basis.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-29681788112804012742013-03-15T23:56:00.000-07:002019-09-17T11:23:52.988-07:00I'm Not Ready To Make Nice<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">April 10, 2019</span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">I’m Not Ready to Make Nice<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">If You Are a
Republican, Chances Are: I Don’t Like You<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">By Michael E. Berumen<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">For nearly two years prior to the 2016
election, liberal commentators and analysts described Donald Trump’s supporters
as disaffected white working-class voters or by similar appellations. These
disaffected voters, they would observe, felt as though they had been left behind,
that they were effectively disenfranchised and marginalized in society. They
would go on to cite various problems with underemployment, lack of skills, the
opioid crisis in working-class neighborhoods, and so forth. Liberal politicians
averred similar things, though once in a while they would also slip and call some
of them “deplorable,” as Hillary Clinton did at one point, echoing Barrack
Obama’s earlier characterization of people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Trump's defenders would quickly pounce on such elitist talk. In more subtle, less incendiary ways, commentators on cable television and in the opinion pages of major newspapers made similar observations. Liberal broadcasters would laud
Trump for pinpointing and skillfully exploiting the disgruntlement of many of
his supporters. They would admonish anti-Trump forces for ignoring the
legitimate grievances of the white working-class at their own peril. Trump was quickly
seen as a huge ratings booster, and producers fell all over themselves to give
him free air time. Trump played media like a Stradivarius, including several of
his most vociferous on-air opponents, today, who facilely now ignore their past
fawning over him. <span style="color: #333333;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Becoming all the rage among cognoscenti were
several books that dealt with the subculture and mores of a browbeaten, downtrodden,
white working-class, or as they were sometimes more vividly described, “white
trash.” This underclass was stereotyped by media and liberals as Trump’s core
constituency–––typified by the pot-bellied, big-haired, tattooed folks in
t-shirts and red MAGA-hats who showed up at his rallies and shouted various
epithets at Hillary or the media. What many talking heads failed to do was honestly
report the principal force that impelled Trumpism among many of these people,
namely, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">racism</i>. Their support was more
often than not disingenuously explained away as a reaction to a decline in
their expectations. Liberals were doing what we often do: offering fig leaves
for evil in the form of sociological explanations, suggesting these
manifestations of intemperance and hatred are simply rooted in ignorance, that
they were educable and redeemable, and that they only needed our understanding. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Poppycock. What liberals failed to acknowledge is that these "deplorables" reveled in their white
trash, vulgarian ways; they have no interest in what liberals conceive as
the good life; and that they have an equal, but just more open and honest contempt
for the liberals pretending to respect and care about them. This quest to
reform the perverse is reminiscent of the kind of sociological reductionism
that led the men of Oxbridge to think that they could reason with a madman from
Germany some decades before. The fact is that pure, unalloyed bigotry is at the root of Trumpism, and it is the kind of irrationalism that arises from an amalgam
of hatred for “the other” and from rage over their perceived loss of status in
society. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">And if you want to know why Trump’s various
predatory sexual habits and the revelations of his various infidelities and his
boorish habits did not play as big a factor as one might have expected, it is
simple: add the other obvious, integral part of Trumpism, namely, misogyny. A
woman in her proper place represents an important consideration in the ideal Trumpian
dystopia, a world where women are submissive and vaginas are available to be
grabbed without complaint in a perversion of even middle school male fantasies. In other words, what was really driving much of
Trump’s popularity was the perceived loss of standing among certain white males
manifested by both disdain for people of other ethnicities and for women whose
proper roles are subservience and as objects of gratification. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">I am not a politician. I have no desire to appeal
to those whose views I deplore. It is an exercise in futility to try and persuade
those whose views are not informed by empiricism and logic. We have no common
language or agreement on fundamental facts making cogent discourse possible. These
are the same people who believe men walked the earth with dinosaurs and who
imagine that prayers help them win football games. They are simply stupid
people. They imagine that the pompadoured, spray-tanned buffoon featured on <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Apprentice</i> exemplifies a successful
businessman–––that he is a great negotiator of deals and leader of real
corporate boardrooms. They haven’t a clue as what constitutes either thing. They
have been conned by a not particularly gifted con man, an obvious charlatan, a
salesman of the kinds of nationalistic bromides and ideological potions that
appeal to unlettered nitwits. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">With that said, I wish the rubeocracy that is trumpdom no harm. I want laws,
programs, and institutions that will protect them, even if from themselves, and
notwithstanding the fact they would just as soon have me in a camp somewhere if
given the opportunity. But I am not going feign liking them. I will be civil–––even
kind when necessary. I will respect their personhood and rights. But that
is all, for the fact of the matter is: they disgust me. I want as little to do
with them as possible, even erstwhile friends or members of my own family. To
boil it down to its essence: I am intolerant of fascists and bigots, and I make
no apologies for it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Not every Trumper is stupid. To be sure, most
of them are. But that describes a very large number of people, anyway. A quick
examination of the Gaussian distribution of IQs says most of what one needs to
know about intelligence in the population as a whole, which is to say, people
are not particularly bright, on average. A smaller group of Trumpers consists of those who
are not unintelligent, but who are purely nefarious or self-dealers. These are the
kinds of people who believe that fascism for personal gain represents an
acceptable tradeoff. Caging children, alienating traditional alliances, cozying-up
to dictators, the erosion of women’s rights, jeopardizing the climate for
generations to come, kleptocracy, obstruction of justice, disregarding the rule
of law, coarsening every aspect of life–––these are all okay if in return we
get a favorable tax policy or some other advantage such as a judge whom we
prefer. These are the kinds of people who might have overlooked the antics of
another, earlier vulgarian, Adolf Hitler, whilst appreciating more what he did
for the re-industrialization of Germany. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">In many ways, these people, a handful of more perspicacious Trumpers, are even more deplorable than more
garrulous and dimwitted supporters in red hats that we see at the rallies. The fact
that they do not subscribe to Trump’s obvious racism and misogyny in their ideological
forms does not disguise their perfidy, though, for their willingness to ignore Trumpism’s
inherent racism and misogyny in order to secure other outcomes, which amounts to facilitating
their ill effects, all the same, which is to say, it is essentially a
distinction without a substantive difference. They, too, are racists and
misogynists by any other name simply from their indifference to it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">In summary, there are two kinds of Trumpers,
namely, the stupid and the nefarious. There is undoubtedly also some overlap
between the two in the Venn diagram of Trumpism. At this point in the Trumpian
era, though, there is not a third, separate category of Trumper. Naiveté or
high hopes can no longer be excused as it might have been (one had to have been
pretty oblivious, too) as recently as November of 2016, giving some the benefit
of the doubt. The bottom line is this: if you support Trump today you’re either
a damn idiot or a self-dealing son-of-a-bitch, and I don’t particularly like
you in either case. I do not need your vote and I wouldn’t give a bucket of
piss for your approval. I am not wasting my time on you. There are too many others
who have been on the sidelines in all of this and who can be persuaded to do
the right thing, people who are susceptible to reason and who desire a just
world: people who are earnest but threw away their vote on a third party;
people who didn’t vote at all; or youngsters who will vote for the first time. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The Dixie Chicks had it right back in the
Bush-era when they denounced the unnecessary wars of that administration and as a consequence suffered the ignominy of the ignorant tribes wrapped in their flags. And they’d be right again today in relation to Trumpers. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">I'm not ready to make nice<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">I'm not ready to back down<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">I'm still mad as hell, and I don't have time<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">To go 'round and 'round and 'round<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">As for the rest of you: just get out and
vote.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Michael Berumen is a retired CEO and a
published author on diverse topics including economics, mathematics, music, and
philosophy. He has lectured to civic, academic, and business audiences
internationally, and testified before the US Congress and local legislative and
regulatory bodies as an expert witness on health insurance reform. He has
served on various boards of directors. Among other things, he is the author of
the book Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business.
An Army veteran, aviator, kung fu sifu, outdoorsman, music lover, former
juvenile delinquent, CSUEB and Stanford alum, and longtime Californian, he and
his wife retired to the northern Colorado countryside. He still takes on
speaking engagements, but on a limited basis.http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/and
http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/" rel="license"><img alt="Creative Commons License" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png" style="borderwidth: 0;" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/" rel="license">Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-87931664618339856432013-03-15T23:55:00.001-07:002019-12-08T10:59:25.689-08:00The Ontology, Mythology, and End of Race<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">The Ontology,
Mythology, and End of Race<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">By Michael
E. Berumen<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
There are three major forces of our
own manufacture that serve to alienate large swaths of people from one another and
engender all manner of evil in our species. These are ancient forces; however,
they are neither intractable nor ineradicable. One is the extremes of
inequality in wealth (and hence, power), with the correlates of absolute,
abject poverty in the worst case, as we find in the so-called “third world,” and
relative poverty as we observe in more advanced nations, as well as the
concomitant sociological and psychological effects of both kinds of poverty.
Another is xenophobia (or jingoism) in its various forms, ranging from
primitive tribalism to chauvinistic nationalism, phenomena that are usually
accompanied by other factors such as ideological and religious differences, or
ambitions for territory or suzerainty over others. And then there is bigotry, more
broadly described as bias against or even hatred of peoples of the opposite
sex, a different sexual orientation, a different religion or creed, or some
other classification of people, such as a racial construct or ethnic grouping,
which is to say, racism. No virulent disease or natural disaster has caused as
much misery and death as the foregoing manmade maladies throughout the relatively brief history of our species.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
I would argue that racial hatred has
been a particularly debilitating factor, and it is to no small degree often subsumed
under the other two major forces of alienation, namely, economic inequality and
xenophobia. The disregard, fear, or hatred of others based on superficial
differences in their phenotypical characteristics, what is effectively the
denial of their humanity, and it has resulted in more privation through oppression,
war, and genocide than any other manmade factor over the course of human
history–––even more than our differences in religion and nationality. The
genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas over a one hundred year
period is estimated to have resulted in the loss of about 100 million lives,
roughly 10 times the number lost in the Holocaust genocide of the 20<sup>th</sup>
century. And yet, the differences that obtain among peoples by virtue of so-called
racial classifications are quite insignificant from a biological standpoint,
which makes the hatred people on the basis of race among of the greatest follies
and self-induced tragedies of our species. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
The more general term “bigotry” strikes
me as superior to racism for describing the antipathy or sense of superiority
towards others based on their quotient of melanin, other morphological traits, or
their ancestry. This is true because “race,” the root term, is highly ambiguous
and possesses virtually no biological or lexical merit. It primarily serves as
a clumsy and overly-general description of skin color and other characteristics
associated with the geographic distribution (often erstwhile) of various indigenous
populations. It is essentially a linguistic or cultural construct used to
categorize people into identifiable groups, and often enough in a pejorative
way, rather than as a meaningful biological description. With that said, for
the last couple of centuries, ideologues have contrived to use science on
selective and mistaken bases to bolster a case for a hierarchical taxonomy of
race. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
In earlier times, race was primarily
a term used to designate people into groupings by language and nationality. The
idea of classifying peoples by phenotypical types began in the 17th century. In
the late 18<sup>th</sup> century, the German physician and naturalist, Johann
Blumenbach, posited five major classifications for humankind in his treatise, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Natural Varieties of Mankind</i>,
namely, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Ethiopians (later renamed Negroid), American
Indians, and Malayans. Variations on those classifications have continued up to
the present time, notwithstanding the fact they are devoid of any scientific sense.
Consider, for example, the fact that there is more genetic and phenotypic variation
in sub-Saharan Africa then there is in the entirety of the rest of the world,
rendering the classification Negroid virtually useless as a descriptor of
Africans from a biological perspective. And, notwithstanding the variation either
there or elsewhere, the differences among groups within our species as a whole are
relatively inconsequential when compared to the similarities.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
Detailed studies of human diversity
and genetics have shown there is more variation among individuals within standard
racial classifications than there is among the classifications themselves. In
other words, two people of Anglo-Saxon heritage might be more different from
one another in terms of their genetic makeup than they are from someone who is
from, say, Thailand. There is no evidence that the racial categories we
commonly use have unifying genetic properties. In fact, the contrary has been
shown to be true. If there were biologically separate racial or ethnic groups,
we would find common alleles and other genetic properties within a group that
we would not be able to find in any other groups. However, an exhaustive
Stanford study conducted by scientists in 2002 discovered only 7.4% of over
4000 alleles was specific to a geographical region, and even more surprisingly,
when such alleles did appear in a particular region, they were found in only 1%
of the people from that region. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
The customary categories of race are
based primarily on our skin color and other visible characteristics such as height,
eyes, and hair. There are a number of environmental factors that account for
these variations. For example, skin color evolved from natural selection to control
the several effects of radiation from the sun based on geographic location, and
it occurred over a relatively short time span in geologic terms. In reality, all
of these physical differences are exceedingly superficial and not especially telling
when one considers what a small part of the human genome they actually represent.
Biologists tell us that as a species we share about 99.9% of our DNA, which is
to say, there is only a 0.1% difference. In other words, that which separates
us is quite trifling. There is no such thing as a human sub-species, and there
is not a competing hominid of the genus <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">homo</i>,
as once existed thousands of years ago with the Neanderthals and Denisovans. We
are one species: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Homo sapiens</i>. And as
a species, ours has very little genetic variation when compared to other
species, even some of our closest primate relatives with smaller populations. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
With the advent of global migration
and commerce, along with a concomitant decline in bigotry, there has been an increasing admixture of humanity through the mingling and resultant procreation
of peoples of different heritages. As this continues, along with increasingly similar
requirements for environmental adaptation and similar dietary and health habits,
there will be a greater resemblance to one another in terms of our several gross
morphological characteristics, e.g., skin color, height, eyes, and hair, while,
at the same time, the overall gene pool of humankind will improve with greater genetic
diversity. Put more simply, we will look more alike and our gene pool will be
healthier. With greater intermingling, fewer people who are closely related to
one another will intermarry and genetic variation will increase, and, as a
consequence, our adaptability to changing conditions on Earth will improve
through mutations. The many smaller gene pools throughout the world will merge into
larger ones, which ultimately will have significant and positive implications
on the evolution of our species.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
Admittedly, I sometimes use terms
such as race, racism, and racist as colloquial appellations. I do so
reluctantly. However, notwithstanding the limitations of their denotations, these
terms continue to connote in everyday parlance what I wish to communicate about
bigotry. Still, they leave much to be desired, for the words imply more than
they deserve, which is the falsehood that there are significant biological
distinctions to be made between one group and another. That is simply not based
on scientific fact, and I look forward to the day when the very concept of race
is obsolete, and the term is used only as an artifact of history, and the sooner
the better in my view. Race is essentially a bogus concept from the start. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
If we do not blow ourselves to smithereens
or get annihilated by an asteroid––––that is, if our species survives––––there someday
will be fewer superficial physical traits to divide us. This will not happen in
the very near future in terms of human lifespans, but in geological terms, it will
happen very quickly. After all, anatomically modern humans migrated from East
Africa only about 70,000 years ago (some others of our genus migrated earlier,
but did not survive), first spreading along the southern coast of Asia and then
on to Europe about 40,000 years ago. Generations from now, the present concept
of race will be as distant a notion as alchemy and the Ptolemaic solar system
are to us today–––mere historical curiosities. The “end of race” will give us
one less reason to fear, misunderstand, and hate one another. In the meantime,
our best hope is to continue to make bigotry of all kinds an anathema to what
we deem as civilized behavior, to eschew hatred and fear of others based on
their place of origin and their physical characteristics, and to educate our
children about the scientific facts concerning the things that make us much more
alike as human beings than the minor differences that separate us. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 8.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Michael Berumen is a retired CEO and a published
author on diverse topics including economics, mathematics, music, and
philosophy. He has lectured to civic, academic, and business audiences
internationally, and testified before the US Congress and local legislative and
regulatory bodies as an expert witness on health insurance reform. He has
served on various boards of directors. Among other things, he is the author of
the book Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business.
An Army veteran, aviator, kung fu sifu, outdoorsman, music lover, former
juvenile delinquent, CSUEB and Stanford alum, and longtime Californian, he and
his wife retired to the northern Colorado countryside. He still takes on
speaking engagements, but on a limited basis. </span><a href="http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-size: 8.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/</span></b></a><span style="font-size: 8.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">and </span><a href="http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-size: 8.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/</span></b></a><span style="font-size: 8.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 8.0pt;"><a by-nc-nd="" creativecommons.org="" href="https://www.blogger.com/u/1/%3C/span%3E%3Ca%20href=" http:="" licenses="" rel="license" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 8.0pt;">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</span></a><span style="font-size: 8.0pt;">"><img alt="Creative Commons
License" by-nc-nd="" https:="" i.creativecommons.org="" l="" src="</span><a href=" style="border-width: 0;" target="_blank" x31.png="" /><span style="font-size: 8.0pt;">https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png</span></span></span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-size: 8.0pt;">" /></span><br />
This work is licensed
under a <a by-nc-nd="" creativecommons.org="" href="https://www.blogger.com/u/1/%3C/span%3E%3Ca%20href=" http:="" licenses="" rel="license" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 8.0pt;">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</span></a><span style="font-size: 8.0pt;">">Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</span>.<o:p></o:p>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-17034888807320306032013-03-15T23:55:00.000-07:002019-04-10T11:54:39.436-07:00A Précis on Reparations: A Moral Imperati<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Reprinted from 3-31-19 LiberalResistance</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
We often think
of reparations in terms of its juridical denotation, that of a criminal
compensating a victim for injuries she has incurred. It is a legal remedy
intended as both retribution and as a form of restitution for the victims. Such
reparations could be made by an individual or even by an institution, such as a
corporation, in order to account for an unjust deed done to another. But there
is another kind of reparation, and that is when a person or persons is given
recompense for an injustice or injustices at the hand of government. Such was
the case with Japanese who were unjustly interned during World War II. When a government
pays such reparations, the cost is presumably borne by members of the society
raised through various forms of taxation. Reparations become a liability, therefore,
a debt to society. This is the kind of reparation I wish to discuss, namely, a
social reparation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
Now, it goes
without saying that a government often incurs debts paid by the taxpayers, and this
is true notwithstanding the fact that some of the citizens paying will not themselves
derive any benefits from the original purchase or the largess bestowed. In
fact, the debt may even have originated so long ago that many living might not
have been around when it was incurred, such as the debts acquired from war, major
building projects, aid to other countries, or for incurred but unpaid
liabilities for the sick and elderly. Interest payments on old government bonds
(which essentially represent a loan) are perhaps the most obvious example. We
generally accept these kinds of liabilities as a matter of course and without
too much controversy as part of the normal burden of the implied social
contract, one that bestows both rights and duties to the members of society. We
may quibble over amounts or how to go about paying for them, but it is
generally accepted that there are debts that people in the here and now owe for
things that were incurred long before, liabilities based on decisions made by
people who might be long gone. Then, of course, there are also the kinds of
debts that arise from expenditures today that do not have a direct benefit to
some or even many of the ultimate payers of the encumbrance, the taxpayers. We
might be paying for federal highways or social programs we’ll never use, for
example. We are accustomed to many such debts. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
Whenever the
subject of reparations for African Americans in the United States arises, those
who oppose them are wont to argue that they are not responsible for the wicked
deeds of prior generations. They tell us they have not enslaved anyone or done
anything untoward to African Americans, and therefore, that they should not be
burdened by the costs for someone else’s transgressions or because of the past
injustices inflicted by society. “Where will it end,” they might reasonably ask,
for many have suffered all manner of evil at the hands of prior generations.
They will go on to say that those whose ancestors were once enslaved are not
any more disadvantaged, today–––at least not in any significant way–––under the
law, in places of employment, or by other institutions subject to public
accommodation than any other group of people, some of whom were also disadvantaged
before or even now, and, therefore, that they ought simply to buck up and deal
with it. Of course, the empirical evidence contravenes this latter point quite
convincingly by any number of economic and sociological measures. The argument
that opportunities are equal --- notwithstanding the intent of the law or the various
affirmative measures that have been undertaken --- simply flies in the face of the unvarnished facts. In
fact, each of the foregoing arguments in opposition is fallacious. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
Let us stipulate
that it is true that there are no African American slaves in the United States
today. Let us further stipulate that the current generation of people of
European ancestry are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not </i>responsible
for having committed the historical injustices associated with slavery and Jim
Crow that were inflicted upon African Americans, a people forcibly kidnapped
from their homes; enslaved and robbed of their culture, history, dignity, and
independence; separated from their families–––wives from husbands, children
from parents, brothers from sisters; brutalized, raped, and often killed; and who,
long after slavery ended, were denied justice under the law and discriminated
against in nearly every area of public life. The argument is that there should
be no moral or financial burden as a consequence of these facts, for the past
is the past, we cannot undo it, and current generations did not commit these
egregious acts and thusly ought not to be held culpable or penalized for the many
regrettable things that were done long ago. But this is not an argument about
moral blame, but instead, it is one of moral duty. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
If we are
going to suggest that the past has no bearing on our present, then it also
follows that the present generation of Americans is to no small degree “freeloading”
based on the advantages bestowed upon it by its ancestors, a foundation and
starting place enjoyed by the present generation in varying degrees, and with
no cost borne by its current beneficiaries. They are essentially historical
“free riders, to use the parlance of economists. In other words, if we are to
say that we do not bear responsibility for the injustices of the past, how then,
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ceteris paribus</i>, in the same breath,
can we also suggest we deserve the benefits that resulted from the toil of our
forbearers? Why is it that the benefits of past efforts are assumed to be ours,
but the injustices of the past are merely for the history books, when the fact
is that these injustices have created very real, demonstrable economic,
sociological, and psychological deficits for people in the present time, in the
here and now, much as positive things we enjoy today have resulted from the labors
of our predecessors? Opponents who base their arguments on the
non-transferability of responsibility for social injustices from one generation
to the next want to have their cake and eat it too. They are more than willing
to accept the advantages given to them from the toil of their predecessors or
the good fortune with which they began at birth–––and in both cases through no
sweat of their own brow or from any special moral desert. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
The African
American experience in our country is unlike that of any other post-Columbian immigrant
group, notwithstanding the fact that other ethnic or religious groups also have
experienced discrimination and inequality under the law, including women or
non-heterosexuals of all ethnicities. Theirs is a unique experience. Africans
did not immigrate here freely, for one obvious thing, and many who were
kidnapped and sent here lost their lives in transit. It is believed that at
least 2 million people died while being transported in the infamous Middle
Passage. No other post-Columbian immigrant group <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">en masse</i> has sustained nearly the level of systematic legal and
institutional oppression for as long a period with as many widespread, multi-generational
effects on outcomes, effects that can be observed today, and traceable to miseries
sanctioned and even mandated by society at large, indeed, even as recently as
little more than a generation ago. All of this is true, notwithstanding the notable
exceptions and progress that has been made in the post-civil rights era of the
mid-1960s. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
Only one other
group of people has sustained similar privation, namely, the Native Americans,
the people who discovered and first settled the Americas thousands of years
before others arrived. Through theft, expropriation, conquest, or deceit, their
land was taken from them by Europeans. Entire nations were wholly or nearly
demolished through state-sponsored genocide, and their way of life was all but
eradicated. When Columbus arrived on Watling Island in the Bahamas in 1492, it
is estimated that there were about 10 million Native Americans in what now
constitutes the United States. By 1900, there were only 300,000. Many millions more
were killed in other parts of the American continents. Discriminatory and
oppressive practices continued long after the foregoing tragedies with the surviving
Native Americans. As with African Americans, while there have been prominent
exceptions and there certainly are observable areas of progress, the awful
effects of this history of genocide, oppression, and discrimination continue today.
Moreover, while there certainly have been other instances of discrimination and
oppression, whether Catholic, Chinese, Irish, Japanese, Jews, Mexicans, Mormons,
etc., no other groups in the United States can make the same claims of
sustained and systematic brutality, persecution, and discrimination by the society
at large as African Americans and Native Americans. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
To be born of
European heritage in the United States, indeed, in the Americas as a whole, is
an advantage. It is just a plain, empirically discernible fact. This is true in
various ways even with poorer Euro-Americans, though it is apparently difficult
for some people to comprehend how a rich black man can be disadvantaged when
compared to a relatively poor white man. A poor Euro-American does not suffer
nearly the same kind of attention or suspicion in public accommodations, even
in as mundane an activity as walking through a store, nor do they suffer the
same risks in the enforcement and administration of justice as someone of
darker pigmentation, all without regard to the latter’s economic or educational
background. This creates a constant and very real burden and psychological
anxiety from an early age. Some will always point to this or that person who
has achieved great success to illustrate the contrary, but the exception, here,
does not make the rule. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
Put more
simply, a lighter complexion in a society whose political, commercial, and
cultural institutions are dominated by those of European heritage is a decided advantage
in multifarious ways, and one begins his life with a set of privileges that cannot
be enjoyed by darker peoples in either the present or the near future, notwithstanding
any of the other advantages they possess. What is more, the statistics on average
incomes, employment, educational achievement, rates of incarceration, death
penalty convictions, morbidity, mortality, and any number of other criteria
provide overwhelming empirical evidence of the pernicious effects of centuries
of oppression and deprivation. In an effort to provide a just society, we seek
to eliminate all of these forced and unnecessary inequalities, but it will take
much more effort and time. Reparations certainly are not going to solve all of
the problems, but, if handled correctly, it could be a very large step in the
right direction. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
We are social
animals. Each of us depends upon society in a variety of ways to protect our
interests and to ensure our well-being. Government is the instrument through
which much of this occurs, whether by protecting and defending us against adversaries,
through our various institutions of justice, or by providing for the common
welfare in accordance with the state’s economic and technological wherewithal.
The balance of social support occurs through our various affiliations and associations
and, perhaps most importantly, from the family. Even the least social among us
has some dependency upon these things. All of us are born into a position of
one sort or another without having had anything whatsoever to do with that
starting place ourselves, that status being merely a result of the good luck or
the bad luck of the draw––genetically, financially, and in terms of our
familial circumstances. We may be equal in an abstract, ideal sense under the
law or in moral terms, but we most certainly are not equal in terms of our
personal advantages and disadvantages out of the gate, advantages and disadvantages
over which we had no say. Few who are fortunate to have good families and
economic security at birth would be willing to trade their position with those
who are not as privileged, and yet, it is not altogether uncommon for those who
were so advantaged to imagine their ensuing success was derived solely by their
efforts, while simultaneously thinking those who have not had similar fortune
are responsible for all of their failures and undeserving of any redress that might
come at an additional cost to those who were luckier. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
I submit that
reparations for the kind of extreme injustice suffered by African Americans and
Native Americans over many generations are not only defensible, but morally
required. Society has a responsibility to redress these injustices with such
profound trailing consequences and to militate against the kinds of disadvantages
caused by centuries of oppression without causing concomitant and disproportionate
harm to others. I am uncertain what forms these reparations should take, but I
believe one place to start–––one that will benefit the direct beneficiaries and
society as a whole–––is education. More federal and state dollars directed
towards inner-city and tribal schools would be one thing that seems very practicable
today. Tuition-free education at institutions of higher learning for several
decades would be another. A payment of substance over a period of several years
based on per-capita family income might also help to shore up opportunities for
better housing, independence, and not inconsequential, greater self-respect,
particularly with the children of said beneficiaries who might begin with fewer
disadvantages. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
The problems
of envy and resentment within society, of course, will be issues, and ones that
must be handled intelligently. Some will think it unfair that they are not also
recipients of such assistance. These unfortunate human character flaws exist in
all manner of social settings–––e.g., families, neighbors, and colleagues–––and
especially where there are extremes in wealth and privilege. A strong case of
historical and moral desert can be made in our civic and educational
institutions that will serve to lessen these undesirable feelings on the part
of others. We can also promote the value of the satisfaction that comes with
generosity, as well as capitalize on the social stigma attached to our more
primordial and baser emotions of envy. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
Obviously, the
devil is in the details with any approach. But we cannot ignore the fact that
these two groups, and more than any others in the United States, are deserving
of recompense and additional uplift for the harm–––harm that continues even today
in various material ways–––that was inflicted upon them by society for many consecutive
generations, and that this shoring-up is no less warranted than our freely
accepting the benefits created by prior generations through no effort of our
own. The fact remains that the extreme damage done cannot be wiped away with just
a checkbook. People in their private lives and in our institutions, both public
and private settings–––and particularly the various institutions that enforce
and administer justice–––must all play a curative role. We have a moral
obligation to ensure that we do our utmost today to protect the interests of future
generations, and we must carefully consider any action that we undertake today
that could have deleterious ramifications beyond our own time. Moral
obligations do not end in the present, and they also cannot ignore the past.
Morality is about behavior, how we act, and that can affect outcomes in future
generations, and also redress the injustices of the past. These are the things a
civilized people ought to do. Society has incurred a debt originated by others that
is due and payable from past acts with consequences that persist and cannot be
settled in a bankruptcy court or erased from the ledgers of justice by a simple
stroke of the pen. History will render a harsh verdict if we do anything less. The
future depends on what we do today to rectify these profound moral arrears that
continue to haunt us. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 15.0pt; mso-outline-level: 2; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Michael Berumen is
a retired CEO and a published author on diverse topics including economics,
mathematics, music, and philosophy. He has lectured to civic, academic, and
business audiences internationally, and testified before the US Congress and
local legislative and regulatory bodies as an expert witness on health
insurance reform. He has served on various boards of directors. Among other
things, he is the author of the book Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to
Economic Theory and Business. An Army veteran, aviator, kung fu sifu,
outdoorsman, music lover, former juvenile delinquent, CSUEB and Stanford alum,
and longtime Californian, he and his wife retired to the northern Colorado
countryside. He still takes on speaking engagements, but on a limited
basis. </span><a href="http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; text-decoration: none;">http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/</span></b></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">and </span><a href="http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; text-decoration: none;">http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/</span></b></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 15.0pt; mso-outline-level: 2; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: xx-small;"><a by-nc-nd="" creativecommons.org="" href="https://www.blogger.com/%3C/span%3E%3Ca%20href=" http:="" licenses="" rel="license" target="_blank"><span style="background: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">"><img alt="Creative Commons License" by-nc-nd="" https:="" i.creativecommons.org="" l="" src="</span><a href=" style="border-width: 0;" target="_blank" x31.png="" /><span style="background: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png</span></span></span></div>
</div>
<span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: xx-small;">" /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">This work is licensed under
a <a by-nc-nd="" creativecommons.org="" href="https://www.blogger.com/%3C/span%3E%3Ca%20href=" http:="" licenses="" rel="license" target="_blank"><span style="background: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">">Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</span>.</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 8.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-31848630860518684702013-03-15T23:54:00.000-07:002019-05-28T15:14:05.320-07:00Kings, Queens, and Jokers<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">By Michael
E. Berumen<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">There’s
something to be said for monarchy. Not the kind that entails absolute power as enjoyed
by the likes of Louis IV, Henry VIII, or Catherine the Great. I have in mind
something rather different, something that bears greater similarity to what the
Queen of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms has today, that is, a
so-called constitutional monarchy, one with limited powers who “rules” in a democratically
elected, representative government, and where the day-to-day affairs of state
are managed by the elected office holders. In the case of Great Britain, that
would be the Prime Minister, various cabinet members, and their appointees. The
Devil is in the details, of course, and there are improvements over the British
system that one can envision, but in many ways, this makes much more sense to
me than the American structure, albeit, the idea of a written Constitution wherein
rights are delineated is something I’d want to keep. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Setting
the mechanical principles of governance aside, there are several advantages to
monarchy, as silly as the institution might appear to some. There is much to be
gained by separating the functions that attend the head of state, a person who is
seen to embody the ideals, will, and stature of a country, from the messier
business of actually running the government and the process of getting elected,
and the unseemly partisanship that accompanies all of it. Thus separated, it
allows for someone to handle the matters of state that require dignity and
decorum–––something profoundly lacking in the chief executive in today’s
America–––and someone who represents the country as a whole, standing above squabbling
factions, which is something the Founders and Framers worried about a great
deal, and perhaps most notably, George Washington, who eschewed factionalism. Even
John Adams, perhaps the single most important, forceful, and articulate
advocate for independence prior to the American Revolution, favored having a
monarch for reasons such as these. Of course, one doesn’t need a hereditary
monarch for such a separation of duties. There are other examples of
presidencies that act as head of state for limited periods without being the
operational head of government–––for example, in Israel. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">With
that said, aside from dividing the labor between a head of state and a head of
government, there are virtues to a hereditary constitutional monarchy. It
provides for continuity of leadership over time, which is important in the
sense that people crave a certain kind of permanence and stability, something
they can count on every day for the whole of their lives. While it is true that
mediocrities will be the order of the day and a clustering around the mean of
innate abilities will occur, as is invariably the case in every significant
segment of society, there’s evidence to suggest that a first-class education and
moral training can produce a sense of duty, reasonable judgment, and common
sense even among those with otherwise average minds. In other words, even people
possessing the most ordinary of intellects can rise to the role, given the
proper tools and motivation. And let’s face it, mediocrities rule the day among
elected officials in a democracy, too, whereas, duty and judgment are not
always evident in those who are burdened by their ambition, and this stands in
juxtaposition with those born into power and reared to manage it. Why, after
all, should it surprise anyone that those elected by a majority of their fellow
middling folk aren’t any more perspicacious than those who put them there? Still,
invoking Lord Acton, the highly corrupting influence of absolute power can affect
us all, including superior intellects, making them even more dangerous as
history has shown more than once, and that is why the rights and duties of the
monarch must be carefully circumscribed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">There
is overwhelming evidence that we humans long for heroes to lead us and that we are
prone to celebrity worship. Most people–––even the most circumspect among us, including
those who imagine themselves to be ruled solely by reason–––have a need to admire
and transfer some part of their aspirations to people they consider grander
than themselves. Consider how people the world over are fascinated by
celebrities in the arts and sports, fawn over prominent intellectuals (yes,
even in academia) or business tycoons; or blindly follow charismatic
politicians. A monarch can fulfill this need, and perhaps even distract from
the dangers of following charismatic, would-be tyrants. In America, there is as
much enthrallment with the British monarchy and its trappings as there is among
the Brits themselves. A monarch’s family can also provide a useful distraction
and entertainment, not without some cost at the public trough, mind you, but within
reasonable limits. The benefits of having a head of state and an institution
that most people can respect would seem to outweigh the associated and
comparatively small financial encumbrances. The British Commonwealth and Japan
both provide reasonably attractive and financially manageable examples.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">I say
all of this only in partial seriousness. I am not proposing monarchy for the
United States, which is clearly unfeasible. It is much more likely we will fall
into dictatorship with the likes of the current occupant of the White House
than what I’m positing here. But, I am not so sure that if they could have
known what we know today about all that ensued after 1776, that those Colonists
who rebelled against England and King George III would have done the same given
the chance. Armed with knowledge of the future, it is conceivable that they would
have negotiated a different arrangement with the mother country, one that would
have given greater representation and local autonomy. The possibilities are
endless: Napoleon might have been defeated much sooner with our assistance; slavery
would likely have ended earlier, as it did in Britain (1772) and the Empire
(1833); the American Civil War might thereby have been avoided; and, given the
overwhelming might of the British Empire, one that included America, the world
wars of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, the Holocaust, and other depredations might
never have occurred. There is not a laboratory to test such a thesis, and given
the fickle finger of historical fates and unintended consequences, it could
well have turned out for the worse for all we know. While Americans are prone
to comforting–––and often enough, deluding–––themselves with their
self-described “exceptionalism,” there’s considerable hubris in thinking that
the rebellious Colonists produced the best of possible outcomes. Quite apart
from the special geographic advantages and fecundity that we enjoy, some of the
things we single out as great American virtues–––productivity and individualism
being among them–––do not seem to have depended upon separation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">It
gives one pause to think the Founders might have erred. It must be remembered
that historically one man’s patriot is another’s traitor, and one man’s
revolutionary is another’s terrorist. The victors are the ones who usually
decide the appellation we will use. We prefer to think things turned out for
the best, but it cannot be so easily demonstrated when we set aside our grammar
school indoctrinations and our primordial tribal sentiments. And then there’s
the matter of treason. Consider General Benedict Arnold–––a British citizen who
rebelled with his fellow Colonists against the Crown, who undergoes apostasy
(with the encouragement of his Tory wife and after becoming aggrieved with his
treatment by Congress), who then resumes loyalty to the Crown once again. As a
consequence and ever since, in the minds of Americans he’s become the very
definition of treason. Did Arnold, an Englishman who fought for England and
against those who rebelled against their own country do a greater injustice than,
say, a President who cooperates with a foreign power and then lies about it in
order to win an election, and who proceeds to denigrate and alter the
institutions of his country and coarsen its ethos and enliven hatred and
bigotry in the citizenry? It is difficult to argue that the latter is less
ignoble than Arnold’s treachery, which, after all, was against those in
rebellion, and, at least ultimately, not against his country (one has to
imagine the country we now call the United States existed before it did to
consider the rebellion anything other treason, whatever its moral merits might
have been). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">It is
easy to poke fun at some of the silliness and pomp surrounding the remaining
monarchs in the modern age. But is it any more preposterous than what occurs
with the often vacuous personalities celebrated by tens of millions today? I
rather think it is less absurd. Unlike the kind of worship directed to
celebrities, there is a purpose to having someone embody the values of the nation
and someone who is respected by virtue of what she symbolizes, and whose ultimate
duty is to serve the nation. This stands in contrast to those to whom no such
motive can be ascribed without reservation–––those who aspire to have power over
others, or those whose influence is simply due to their having an unusual talent,
being extraordinarily good looking, or who have a pile of money. The more I
think about it, the more I’ve come to believe that the rest of us jokers might
benefit were we the subjects of kings and queens born into their role and
groomed for obligation and service, rather than being fawning supplicants of pop
stars, moguls of commerce living large, and blow-dried politicians. It is good
I have no political aspirations, as I’d be accused of trying to establish a
monarchy and becoming king! Alas, no, the unvarnished truth is that I am much more
a perennial skeptic and an occasional cynic about human motivations than I am a
monarchist or any other kind of true believer. END<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 10.0pt;">Michael
Berumen is a retired CEO and a published author on diverse topics including
economics, mathematics, music, and philosophy. He has lectured to civic,
academic, and business audiences internationally, and testified before the US
Congress and local legislative and regulatory bodies as an expert witness on
health insurance reform. He has served on various boards of directors. Among
other things, he is the author of the book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Do
No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business</i>. An Army
veteran, aviator, kung fu sifu, outdoorsman, music lover, former juvenile
delinquent, CSUEB and Stanford alum, and longtime Californian, he and his wife
retired to the northern Colorado countryside. He still takes on speaking
engagements, but on a limited basis. </span><a href="http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/%20"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;">http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/</span></a><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;"> and </span><a href="http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;">http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/</span></a><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-40607161044370893082013-03-15T23:53:00.000-07:002019-03-14T12:47:09.761-07:00On Patriotism: Reflections on its Scope and Limits and the Priority of Justice<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">By Michael
E. Berumen<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Some years ago, I read something in the newspaper that
Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt said about patriotism that has stuck with me.
To paraphrase, he said that it was glib and facile to think patriotism merely means
love of country, an easy and painless thing to do. By implication, therefore,
patriotic exhortations, flag-waving, and standing hand-over-heart for the
national anthem are not nearly enough to qualify as patriotic. He said one must
also be willing to defend and support one’s country in exigent times. That, he
believed, was what separated sunshine patriots from the real ones. He was
specifically declaiming against some neo-conservatives who would consign youth
to fight a faraway war (in Iraq) when they themselves were unwilling to do so
when young and called upon to fight in other wars. As I recall, he was
specifically referring to comments made by neo-conservative godfather, Norman
Podhoretz. He took some shots at the late actor John Wayne, too, who spent
decades cultivating an image of hyper-masculinity and of being a patriotic
stalwart, but who nevertheless escaped military service in WWII with
questionable draft classifications. Sound familiar? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Reinhardt quoted a standard lexical definition of
patriotism that included the phrase <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">defends
one’s country</i>, along with loving and supporting it. He was basically saying
that elites who extol the virtues of patriotism often neglect its concomitant duties,
finding it easier to delegate the demanding parts to the boys and girls of Main
Street, rural America, and the inner cities, while simultaneously enshrouding themselves
in the flag and decrying those who do not share their fervor for war as
unpatriotic. By the same token, while Reinhardt did not state this explicitly,
I think one could infer from his comments that it is equally patriotic to
protest against the injustices inflicted by one’s country, including unjust
wars, and particularly when such protests cause one to risk reputation or personal
liberty, which is to say, when one is willing to suffer the consequences of
one’s actions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Let me get my own <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">bona
fides</i> out of the way. I served in the military from 1969-1972. I was a
teenager from a working-class family, barely seventeen, and I volunteered with
my parents’ permission. I was interested in girls, rock ‘n roll, science, and
mathematics, and I hadn’t a clue about the issues surrounding the war then raging
in Southeast Asia. I had some feelings of patriotism, of course, but truthfully,
I enlisted to get away from home and out of a sense of adventure. I was at once
stupid and lucky. There was not much hazard to be found in cryptography, which
is what I did in the military. While serving, I did become more familiar with
current events and I gradually came to doubt the merits of our engagement in
Vietnam. Soon after I was honorably discharged and back in college, I became
politically active and joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW),
becoming an officer of our local Bay Area chapter. Former Senator and Secretary
of State, John Kerry, was one of the senior officers of the VVAW. Later, when
he ran for the presidency, he would be unfairly “Swift-boated” by scurrilous
Bush supporters for what they perceived as patriotic apostasy and opposition to
the war, notwithstanding his personal heroism in combat, and in contrast to the
coddled Bush, whose fulfillment of his military contract with the Texas Air
National Guard was questionable. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">I confess that I have a problem with those who avoided
the draft in those days purely out of self-interest via privileged and
sometimes bogus deferments, and who did not do so out of conscientious objection–––a
noble reason to my mind, and one with which I have no issue–––but rather, who
did so out of self-interest or cowardice. I am especially disdainful of those
who explicitly supported the war, like the young Donald Trump, while simultaneously
taking active measures to avoid military service themselves. Some of these same
people, now old and out of harm’s way, are quick to counsel war or engage in
bellicose chest-thumping at every turn, posturing as tough-guy alpha males,
when their personal biography shows they are physical or moral cowards––or both.
Political and business elites are replete with such people, and I have
encountered many of them over the decades. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">It seems to me the social contract requires us to
undertake certain obligations for the state, obligations implied by having
accepted and benefited from the various rights and privileges bestowed by the society
we inhabit. Among those obligations is the duty to defend one’s country. This
is not an original argument. In fact, it is the essence of the Socratic view of
civic responsibility––what is owed to the society that gives us sustenance and
protection, a view delineated in Plato’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Crito</i>
over two thousand years ago. When the country is wrong, however, I think one is
also duty-bound to assume moral opposition and take appropriate measures of
protest and resistance and to endure the costs under the law (ignominy or even punishment)
of doing so imposed by society. It is the latter reasoning, following the laws,
which led Socrates to choose death over exile when given a choice and after
being convicted for corrupting youth and denying the gods by the Athenian assembly.
I would not propose such an extreme measure, but for similar reasons, I applaud
those who were against the war and who had the courage of their convictions–––those
who resisted the draft from conscience, protested, and then suffered consequences
without fleeing to another country. They were right and courageous. That stands
in contrast to physical and moral cowards like Trump. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">With that said, I do not think the individual soldiers
who did their duty by serving in the military were morally culpable for the war,
any more than the millions of taxpayers who funded and therefore financed and
enabled the war by paying their taxes were blameworthy. I am by no means excusing
those few soldiers who violated military or international law and engaged in
individual war crimes, such as the massacre at Mai Lai in 1968, among several
other moral outrages and malefactions. However, the political leaders who initiated,
led, continued, and continually misled the public about this unjust and costly
war for over a decade surely were morally culpable. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">For many years, now, I have struggled with the very concept
of patriotism. Like most people, I have visceral and tribal feelings of fealty towards
my country, and I feel proud when I consider some of the noble and remarkable things
it has accomplished for its people and for the world as a whole. I can even bristle
when it is criticized (not always unjustly) by outsiders. Like many, I, too, get
chills from watching a 4th of July parade, seeing the majestic Lincoln monument
when lit at night, hearing the Star Spangled Banner, or seeing the rows of
headstones at a military cemetery and the mournful sound of Taps. At the same
time, I am unable to forget that ours is a country founded to no small degree upon
conquest—<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">theft</i>, genocide, kidnapping,
slavery, and, moreover, that there are other ignoble things today and in our
history, ranging from the endemic violence in our gun-ridden culture, Jim Crow,
discriminating against LGBTQ peoples, unequal treatment of women, schemes to
overthrow legitimate governments of other sovereign nations, sponsoring
assassinations, unfair labor practices, economic privation, to initiating
unjust and costly wars. It is impossible for me to reconcile these things with
any simplistic version of patriotism. And while I can take pride in many of the
things we have done as a country, and while I remain hopeful and optimistic
about its future, I am unable to accept “American exceptionalism” as a doctrine
that can stand on its own without also saying in equal measure that our nation
has also committed evils of the highest order. Saying this, of course, among
several other reasons, makes me highly unsuitable for political office, for one
must be able to lie at least by omission with a straight face to get elected. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Aside from the historical problems associated with
unvarnished patriotism, I have trouble rationally justifying loving or
respecting abstract, disembodied entities when considered separately from their
particular instances or the consequences of said entities. Thus, notwithstanding
my tribal emotions, love of country is intellectually problematic to me given
what I know about its history and that I am unable to ignore. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Duty to country</i> (or governments, etc.)
is something I can understand and adopt as a matter of principle originating in
the social contract, and, even more basically, just as a utilitarian means of
survival. But countries, governments, humanity, political offices–––they are all
essentially abstract entities or concepts, much like the concept of number or
the logical concept of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">modus tollens</i>.
It is only in their particulars and in their effects that they take on
substantive and non-trivial meanings. I can more easily love <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">some</i> of its people and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">some</i> of its ideas and actions in the
particular. Love of country strikes me as similar to loving a sports team or
one’s alma mater. It is a primitive emotion and not one worthy of rational men
and women as a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">raison d'être</i> for
their political outlook or as a basis of moral judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Respect is even more problematic than the love of
country, for that presumably does not arise from emotion, that is, unless
engendered by fear or awe, and then it is not true respect, which ought to
arise from ratiocination. But we sometimes employ the term in a way suggesting
allegiance without due thought, especially when applied to empty abstractions. For
example, I do not <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">respect</i> the “office
of the Presidency” any more than I respect office furniture or a building. One often
hears talk of respecting an office when people want to distance themselves from
the occupant. It’s a weasel phrase. I may have duties that pertain to a particular
position or rank, but that is a different matter, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i></b> one requiring my
respect or love of the position or the person, but just doing my duty, which is
to say, fulfilling legitimate obligations towards the officeholder by virtue of
either an implicit or explicit agreement. In other words, I am really respecting
a principle, an obligation. But there are limits to what I am obligated to do. For
example, I am not obligated to respect unlawfulness or immoral acts. I am able
to respect duty that arises only from a just principle–––and then, only because
of its consequences, and not because of its being a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">summum bonum </i>in and of itself. More on that in a moment. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">I also think it is silly to say I “love” all my
countrymen or humanity. I, for one, do not love all of them, singly or
collectively, and I do not think others really do, either. I am acquainted with
a few thousand people, at most–––and most of them through my travels and former
occupation. I do love some of them, to be sure. But I also dislike what many people
say and do, and there are many more people who I most certainly do not love. In
fact, there are some I do not even like and I do not pretend to like. I do not
respect all of them, either. For example, I do not respect or like people who
support Donald Trump. I respect and even like many with whom I disagree on
political matters. But I will not and I cannot respect or like fascism,
misogyny, or racism, all inherent features of Trumpism; therefore, I cannot
respect or like those adhering to such views, notwithstanding their other
qualities or merely because they are human or even likable in other respects. The
foregoing depredations “trump” the other characteristics. What is more, I see
no real virtue in loving or respecting humanity. Humanity is yet another abstraction,
one useful only for rhetorical flourishes and too unwieldy to have much meaning
beyond ornamental oratory from pulpits. I say this notwithstanding the famous
statement of my philosophical hero, Bertrand Russell, who said, “Remember your
humanity, and forget the rest.” I don’t think he either believed or practiced
that, really, especially the part about forgetting the rest. I have <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">duties</i> towards human beings, however,
and that includes every human being in the particular–––human beings who have
moral rights (firstly) and legal rights (secondarily), and that is true whether
or not I respect or like or love them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">I simply do not buy the Christian “love your neighbor”
business, or the idea that I ought to respect everyone. People say those things
to say them because they think it sounds polite, pious, or lofty–––or it is an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ex cathedra </i>prescription that no one
really follows. It is unctuously disingenuous to me, such as, the “love the
sinner hate the sin” nonsense one hears from some insincere Christians in
reference to homosexuals, who while loving them also smugly believe they will
get their just recompense in Hell. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Some
love</i>. I doubt the sincerity of anyone who says that they love or respect
everyone. What I do respect is the fact that my neighbor has <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rights</i></b>,
even if I do not love or respect him, personally, and that strikes me as a more
important and substantive thing than just having a feeling towards them. What
is more, I believe it is my moral duty to not violate those rights and to
uphold them, notwithstanding any negative sentiments towards him. I cannot help
but note that there are many––and especially those of certain religious sects––who
pretend to love and respect others, but who most certainly do not respect their
rights, whether it is marrying the person they love, having equal rights under
the law, or being able to control one’s own reproductive system. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">I neither begrudge people their feelings of patriotism
or their love for the multifarious symbols and shibboleths that attend it, nor would
I try to dissuade people from having what appear to be intrinsic properties of
our most rudimentary social and tribal natures. I remain mindful, however, of
old Sam Johnson’s admonition that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a
scoundrel.” Am I patriotic? Yes, but not without qualification. I do not
confuse this <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">feeling</i> with virtue. I shall
continue my skepticism, for patriotic zeal often leads to overlooking or even violating
justice, both rights and the concomitant duties that emanate from them, which
in their non-juridical forms originate from overarching moral principles, and
have precedence over all countries, institutions, laws, offices, symbols, and
sentiments. In a just society, the law must attempt to overlap and encompass
these moral principles, and institutions ought to be charged with applying them
impartially and equally. But morality is to law what a constitution is to
statutes in its order of precedence. The ultimate objective of government is to
create and preserve a just society, after all, and it is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">justice</i> that deserves our highest loyalty and respect. Now, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">that </i>would be exceptional–––love and
respect for <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">justice</b> because of what
it can <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">do</i></b> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">for us all</i></b>, and not for its own sake as some disembodied philosophical
abstraction. That is something that I can get behind without any mental
reservation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Michael Berumen is a retired CEO and a published
author on diverse topics including economics, mathematics, music, and
philosophy. He has lectured to civic, academic, and business audiences
internationally, and testified before the US Congress and local legislative and
regulatory bodies as an expert witness on health insurance reform. He has
served on various boards of directors. Among other things, he is the author of
the book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Do No Evil: Ethics with
Applications to Economic Theory and Business</i>. An Army veteran, aviator, kung
fu sifu, outdoorsman, music lover, former juvenile delinquent, CSUEB & Stanford
alum, and longtime Californian, he and his wife retired to the northern
Colorado countryside. He still takes on speaking engagements, but on a limited
basis. </span><a href="http://www.cogitoservices.com/"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">www.cogitoservices.com</span></a><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> and </span><a href="http://www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">www.michaelberumen.academia.edu/</span></a><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-38895552933535041932013-03-15T23:52:00.000-07:002019-09-14T22:13:25.836-07:00The "American Idolization" of Popular Music<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: right;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">y Michael E. Berumen</span></h4>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: x-small;">Published in Liberal Resistance (January 16, 2018)</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">H</span></b><span style="font-size: large;">ow did popular music become like a high school musical? Something happened after the 1980s, and while I like a good chorus line or glee club performance just as much as the next guy, I get tired of too much Broadway and school auditorium music. It doesn’t get me out of my chair or make me want to dance, have sex, or drive my car fast. And it doesn’t take me to another place; indeed, after a while, it simply makes me want to go</span><span style="font-size: large;"> to another place, and just to get away from it. To be blunt, I have just about “had it up to here” with this infusion of Broadway, second-rate imitations of operatic technique, and soulless insertions of R&B in today’s bland, overproduced, under-talented, unoriginal, and formula-driven popular music, where hitting the note rather than conveying the meaning and emotion behind the lyric has become the goal. This is what we had prior to Rock ‘n Roll before the mid-fifties, that is, outside of non-sanitized jazz, which was never again a national phenomenon after the swing era. Aside from hip hop (actually, we find it slowly corrupting hip hop, too), and with few exceptions, it is what we have yet again. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: large;">I want more voices with breaks, pops, tics, guttural sounds, ughs, ahhs, grunts, growls, groans, hiccups, and most of all, voices that project real emotional states that, in turn, conjure strong, evocative feelings in the listener. And please, already, <i>enough</i> (!) of all the chirruping and warbling all over the note that with a better technique might be more suitable for a Puccini aria–––the endless melisma and runs causing one to lose track of what the lyric is, and the nauseatingly gratuitous high notes, including those infernal whistle notes, the ones that get fans who act like they’ve never heard a screeching tire in an orgasmic dither–––all overdone and, more often than not, completely gratuitous or out-of-place. Moreover, these pyrotechnics are often transparent to cognoscente as little more than covers for a lack of pitch control and a lack of precision, and, in the wrong hands, it simply sounds show-offy and contrived. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;">Take a lesson from Billie Holiday, Frank Sinatra, Elvis, Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Willie Nelson, and Louis Armstrong</span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: x-large;">–––</em><span style="font-size: large;">in their vocal work and phrasing there is nothing unnecessary–––nothing missing–––it all fits: every note, every breath, every pause–––everything is right ‘cuz it is sung the way it’s felt.</span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: x-large;"> Make it real. </em><span style="font-size: large;">Stop with the pabulum and the insipidly bland talent-show stuff. Quit trying out for the chorus line.</span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">It would be facile and glib to blame Mariah Carey, personally, for the decline in the quality of popular music by many of today’s artists, but I will submit that her many followers have contributed to its demise and mediocrity by demanding and elevating her style. The singers who have tried to emulate her are particularly blameworthy–––entertainers whose fans characterize them as “vocalists”–––an appellation intended to distinguish them from the herd, that is, more ordinary and mundane practitioners of singing. Sorry, I want <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">singing</em>. I don’t mean this in a personal way. They are artists and they have to make a living, and I admire them for what they do, and I understand why they do it. There’s a market for it. Carey is of course not alone as an object of abject imitation, for it occurs in every era of music. Sinatra and Elvis both had many, as did the Marvelettes, Dylan, the Beatles, Madonna, and Michael Jackson. With few exceptions, outside of hip hop–––and even there, insofar as singing is mixed with rap–––since the early 1990s people coming onto the scene have been greatly influenced by Carey. While it's true of men as well, it is especially and not surprisingly the case with women such as Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Beyoncé, Demi Lovato, and Ariana Grande, their many counterparts, and certainly various “girl” groups such as Fifth Harmony. There are exceptions, to be sure–––and some notable ones such as Amy Winehouse, Nicki Minaj, Halsey, Lorde, Taylor Swift, and Miley Cyrus, whose musical roots and influences seem to be rather different, and who have each shown greater originality than the legions of Mariah wannabes.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">The problem is twofold. Firstly, very few in popular music have now or </span><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">ever have had or ever will have Mariah Carey’s unusual anatomical gifts, her vocal cords, and most specifically, her unusual ability to control her voice over a large range, that is, her ability to effortlessly and smoothly jump octaves. One can count people with these unusual natural abilities on one or two hands, and most of them are in opera. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">Secondly, and on a more critical note, from my perspective, Carey’s vocal technique, especially her overuse of melisma and belting––as formidable as her natural gifts might be–––is not altogether satisfying, and, in particular, it becomes stale when applied to nearly every song. If ever there were a case of someone over-singing by one who needs to prove nothing vocally, it's Mariah Carey. Whether or not it is her intention, it seems as though she wants to demonstrate at every turn she can sing with virtuosity, and that is often at the expense of conveying the meaning and feeling of the song–––and therein lies the major difference between stylists such as Carey and her would-be imitators versus someone like, say, Aretha Franklin or Tina Turner … or among more modern artists, Miley Cyrus or the late Amy Winehouse. One feels<i> </i></span><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">what they say to the bone, the technique is not the focus, they are not trying to show you how well they sing, but how </span><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">they feel, that is to say, what the emotion is. Her legions of imitators who attempt to use her style invariably fall short of her skills, thereby compounding the problem.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">Of course, charisma, like vocal style, is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. But it is an important and ineffable element of performance that separates the good from the great. It seems to me there is a kind of pure charisma that only certain singers can project to a great many people as opposed to a narrow fan base––-an ineffable quality that transcends the standard descriptions of vocal virtuosity, something that is embodied and exuded by the performer himself or herself in a way that others with great vocal ability or beautiful appearances cannot. It is much more than voice or striking physical appearance that makes Elvis, Janis, Madonna, and Michael different and legendary. I mention this because I think it is difficult for some to understand what it is that makes many prefer an artist such as, say, Madonna, over another whose technical vocal abilities are so obviously superior. Of course, production values and physicality (e.g., dance) are factors, but I think the biggest one is simple animal magnetism. Charisma. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: large;">Take Mick Jagger. No one would argue Jagger has the vocal chops of, say, Jordan Smith, the fellow who won <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Voice</em> a couple of years ago, But Jordan is unlikely to fill stadia and arenas year after year for decades well into his 70s … and I would argue the difference is in part the fact that Jagger's </span><span style="font-size: large;">voice exudes a kind of visceral emotion added to the fact that you can’t take your eyes off of him when he performs … he exudes magnetism through his recorded work and on stage to both men and women, and it’s something that very few artists have in such quantities, and it trumps pure technical ability every time. Charisma matters. When the rare person comes along with both charisma and extraordinary vocal ability, so much the better. Perhaps Elvis and Roy Orbison are examples. </span></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">Of course, Jagger has more going for him than just charisma. His voice “fits the lyric. Among the most overlooked things about singing and singers are the importance of the singer’s natural voice, cadences, and intonations in terms of being appropriate for the lyrics, and thereby conveying the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">intention</em> of a song. One cannot imagine Celine Dion singing a Bob Dylan song with nearly the same effect. Or Justin Timberlake managing Gershwin’s “Bess You is My Woman Now” the way Louis Armstrong can. I don’t see the formidable vocal talent of Christina Aguilera doing justice to Amy Winehouse’s music. Not to mention Pavarotti singing Willie Nelson’s greatest hits. With that said, Dylan, Armstrong, Winehouse, and Nelson can be counted as among the greatest singers there are. And yet not one of them would be likely to pass an audition for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir or get beyond the first round of a talent show, whereas, each of the others I mentioned by way of contrast surely would. By the same token, we probably would cringe at the thought of Dylan singing Dion’s “My Heart Will Go On.” </span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">The point is that there are a multitude of ways to approach a lyric, but there are certain voices that are specially equipped to convey its meaning in an impactful and evocative way, and often these voices are not good for every genre, and they do not fit the more formulaic mold of the kind of person one is likely to find doing Broadway or singing in the church choir. It is simply wrong to say that Bob Dylan is not as good a singer as Barbara Streisand, or that Mariah Carey is better than Amy Winehouse. Dylan singing “People” or Carey singing “Rehab” does not make any more sense than Streisand singing “Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door” or Winehouse singing “Hero.”</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">Today’s talent shows, the heirs of <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Star Search</em> and <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">American Idol</em>, have fostered this Broadway cum poor man’s opera style of music to a fare-thee-well. Carey’s influence is on full display in such shows. And as I say, it is not her fault. I admire her extraordinary abilities even though her style usually does not appeal to me (I prefer her first two albums when she was young and not influenced as much by her fan’s expectations over her subsequent work). But the influence she’s had on popular music has largely been negative in my view, and it is writ large on shows like <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Voice</em> and <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">X Factor</em>. There have been some exceptions, notably in the country genre (though its influence, the penchant for over-singing the lyric, is felt even there in recent years), but by and large the warblers, run mavens, and the high-note show-offs (as though a soprano shouldn’t hit a high note? It’s much more impressive when she gets low to a sonorous contralto with clarity, resonance, and timbre!), and with only few exceptions, get the top slots as runners-up or winners in these shows. What is interesting, too, is that with two notable outliers, Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, none of the winners of these shows has become a superstar. Jennifer Hudson did not win (nor should she have won, speaking of over singing), but she is a special case and did manage to do very well in both the movies and recordings. Several others did reasonably well as second-stringers, but they did not make the big leagues like these three did.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">I suppose to a large extent I just lament the decline in popularity of rock music and the kind of R&B and soul music that one had with the Temps, Tops, Aretha, James, and Marvin. Sorry, as talented as they are, Bruno, The Weekend, Ariana, Selena, and Demi are just not in their league in R& B, that is, not when it comes to authentically convey the emotion behind the lyrics. Most of all, though, I regret the overproduced, synthesized, sanitized, and just formulaic approach to popular music. I understand the need for standards and technical proficiency in choral music where harmony and not standing out are important, and in staged musicals where the song is only a part of a greater story, and certainly there is the need for technical proficiency in opera where virtuosity is a must, and where too much variance from the composer’s intention is discouraged. Formula-driven music covering others’ work is necessary and fine for the glee club … but, I do not want to drive to it, hear it at the club over a vodka martini, or dance to it. There I want to feel the music under my skin. In the final analysis, much of what we hear today is proverbial elevator music, background noise that I hear but don’t notice while I hover over the freezer confusedly in the grocery store, or wait thumbing aimlessly through magazines I’d never buy at the dentist’s office. I am waiting for the breakout and break away from this dominant form over the last nearly two decades. I have a couple of artists in mind who are showing the way … but the question is, will the public-at-large follow? That is for another discussion at another time.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: x-small;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Michael Berumen is a retired business executive and published author on diverse topics including economics, mathematics, music, and philosophy. He resides with his wife in Colorado. Among other things, he is the author of the book</em> Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-17457013390125275382013-03-15T23:51:00.000-07:002019-01-24T11:28:00.817-08:00Trumpism is Racist and Misogynistic<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Reprinted from</span> <i><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Liberal Resistance</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .4in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">I</span>t is time for liberals in the broadest sense of the term to come to grips with something many have avoided, heretofore–––partly from gentility, partly from denial, and partly from benign ignorance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is obvious that to support Donald J. Trump as President of the United States is, in effect, to support an overt, obvious, and well-documented racist and misogynist. To cite the many examples of each seems superfluous at this point. The record goes back decades, and national media have been replete with tons of recorded video and voice evidence in the last several years. It is impossible for anyone of average intelligence to think he is not a virulent, noxious racist and misogynist. To argue otherwise is either delusional or willful stupidity. There is no other explanation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And with this said, my thesis is simple: if one offers support to an overt, obvious racist and misogynist who is in a position of great power, and this is a person that one either knows or that one <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ought</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">to know </i>is an overt, obvious racist and misogynist, then one is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">also</i>, by extension, a racist and a misogynist. Because, it says that one is willing to permit such a person to enforce existing policies and make new ones that reflect these venomous sentiments, whether because one agrees with such policies or practices, or just because one is indifferent to it or less concerned about it by virtue of other issues considered more important. To support such a person makes one an accessory and therefore complicit in his malefactions, and without regard to one’s intentions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Indifference</i>, in this case, is every bit as pernicious as intention. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .4in;">
Let us examine the meaning of racism and misogyny in brief and as they stand today. I do not mean that one necessarily has a “theory” of race or about the nature of women.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not necessary to have a systematic theory to be a racist or misogynist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many do have such a theory, some elaborate, some simple, some even hidden in subtext.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By theory I mean something along these lines without all the detail and tendrils: other so-called races, particularly people of darker pigmentation, are in some sense genetically, culturally, or in some combination thereof, inferior, or deserving of suspicion, distrust, or fear. Similarly, a theory of the nature of women would be they are intrinsically inferior and subservient to men, unworthy of the same rights as men, indeed, not even worthy of full respect, which in its worst form might mean inflicting physical or emotional harm at will, or in some rarer cases, they are wholly disdained and ignored as our fellow creatures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .4in;">
These are the obvious forms of racism and misogyny.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But there are other types, and these are perhaps more common among the less overt or obvious racists and misogynists, typically found among more educated people that we might deem as elites, namely, either indifference or obdurateness, or even some combination of the two. In other words, in the former case, one simply doesn’t care or think much about what happens to people of color or to women, or one puts other priorities, say, policies of certain kinds that one likes, or from which one benefits, ahead of the interests of oppressed peoples or those who face institutional and systemic racism or misogyny in one form or another.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the latter case, obdurateness, one is simply willfully oblivious to the obvious because it either suits his interests or because he is emotionally wed to a worldview that is simply confounded by empirical reality and logic that he is otherwise mentally capable of comprehending.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is the kind of person who believes neither he nor his political or social clan is not guilty of racism or misogyny, but who, by virtue of his intelligence and available information, ought to know better.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .4in;">
Now, the fact is that I do not subscribe to the notion that there really is such a thing as race, as such, given the traditional meaning of the word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Race is a bogus concept from a biological perspective. There is much less genetic variation among the so-called major racial groups than there is among individuals <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">within </i>each group and the human species as a whole. Race is essentially an anachronistic way of classifying people, and more often than not, for those in power to subjugate or discriminate against others. It is essentially a social-cultural construct, a lexical formulation, and not a biological one. The word “race” was initially used to describe speakers of a common language and to denote national affiliations; indeed, Winston Churchill used it this way often in his writings and speeches in the first half of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, for example, when he described the English or German races. In the 17th century, more people started to use the term race to describe phenotypical traits, and in due course, it was believed there was a genetic-biological basis for classifying people. But in this vein, and particularly as colonialism took root from the 17th century on, followed by imperialism, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">race</i>, which is to say, people different from ourselves in some way, be it color or tribe or size or shape, also became means of classifying those for whom there was disdain or fear, or thought to be inferior, and often enough, as a justification for subjugation and expropriation. These are the historical and contemporary realities that have driven entire populations into slavery or worse, genocide, justified on the basis of race, or that in modernity have engendered various systems of discrimination and oppression, not always overtly, and often subtly, such as we see today in police behavior, suspicion when using public accommodations, or in the process of procuring employment or housing, just to name some obvious ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .4in;">
Misogyny is even more ancient than racism. It has probably caused more sustained pain, misery, and premature mortality to our fellow human beings than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">any</i> other social phenomenon in humankind, including war and other catastrophes. It consists of many different elements and in varying degrees, some overt, others subtle, and perpetrators and victims alike are not always aware of it. Victims can even be unwittingly complicit in its application. Its main features are societies that are patriarchal or androcentric, which encompasses nearly all societies throughout recorded history; those societies or institutions that by law or custom practice exclusion, discrimination, hostility, and male privilege; practices or tolerance of violence against women, including belittling and emotionally damaging them; female infanticide; and the practice of sexual objectification, treating them as objects of pleasure or utility with little or no regard for their essential humanity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Misogyny is often codified in law; sanctioned or justified in philosophy, theology, or political theory; and of particular importance both historically and culturally, it is often sanctioned and even <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">required</i> by sacred religious texts, including all three of the Abrahamic religions and the major Asian religions. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .4in;">
Like many racists, Trump might well think that he isn’t one, although I am not so sure, though he says he isn’t,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and he’s the first to parade his black friends or point out the lone black person or Mexican at his rallies in a sea of white faces and red hats; but the evidence is simply overwhelming from his statements about Mexicans and “the blacks,” among others, and with his practices in his businesses and his racial dog whistles to arouse fear and enliven the many white supremacists that support him–––and by as much as anything, by the things that he won’t say. I doubt very seriously that Trump has much of a “theory” of race or of women, as such. He is not a cerebral man, to state the obvious. It is fairly clear, though, that he and his father practiced discrimination with their housing developments and that from various statements that he’s made over the years that he views African Americans as his inferiors. It is certainly the case that he views women, even those who he’s related to, as mere objects for his pleasure and his use, often as items for display. And there are reasons to believe that he has been physically violent with at least one woman, his first wife (who accused him of rape and beating her), and we have good reason to believe that he is guilty of serial sexual assaults based on multiple, credible accusations. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .4in;">
Trumpism, I maintain, is a form of fascism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have written at length elsewhere in this publication and in others about this, and will not dwell upon it now. One element is important to mention, though, and that is the identification of the leader himself with the state, which is to say, the interests and persona of the state and the leader are inextricably intertwined, such that the leader becomes the state, his statements become the truth, he is the ultimate standard of reference for what is apodictic and real, and he embodies the law, and is therefore incapable of breaking it (his lawyers and retainers are making this very point already!), and his interests are intrinsic to the interests of the state and vice a versa. This relationship to the state is one of several essential common denominators of all fascist regimes. And by all the available empirical evidence, it is what Trump himself believes and what his core constituency believes. It is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i> populism, as some liberal or more sensible conservative wags have supposed. Indeed, it is anything but, for populism is by definition inherently democratic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Trump uses <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">popular appeal</i>, to be sure, but that is different than being democratic, for it is but a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">means to authority</i>. But Trumpism is also primarily about white men and their grievances, recognizing their perceived sense of loss, and capitalizing on their belief in their inherent superiority and securing their rights of suzerainty over others–––regaining their lost, and their due positions of privilege, both at home and in the world at large.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Race is a fundamental aspect of Trumpism, which is to say, it exploits the systemic racism that exists in an uncomfortably large part of the nation, at least a third of it, and in its institutional body politic, and it has utilized a ready-made vector for it in the Republican Party, the erstwhile party of Lincoln, and in one of the greatest historical ironies, a party that was essentially taken over by Southern Democrats–––Dixiecrats–––gradually and steadily after the 1964/65 Civil and Voting Rights Acts, or as I have argued elsewhere, a continuation of the Civil War by political rather than military means. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .4in;">
I hasten to add, racism and misogyny are not problems only among followers of Trump and Republicans. Liberals have their own problems. The important distinction is this: liberals, for the most part, both know this and desire to work towards eliminating them through both policy and practice. Imperfectly, of course, but with steady progress over time. Liberals are also far more aware, generally, of white privilege, what it entails, and how it informs our behaviors, even with the best of intentions. It takes reminding, but, by-and-large, liberals are much more self-aware. And when there is a problem with persons in power or structurally in our institutions, liberals are much less apt to defend or obfuscate it, and more likely to intervene and correct it. This has not been the case, with few exceptions, among Republicans, and not at all in Trumpdom. Of course, one thing of critical importance for liberals to understand, professing or prescribing, even supporting legislation, making financial contributions, or giving supportive speeches, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">are not sufficient</i> measures of whether or not one is a racist or a sexist, as we have observed in several recent cases with prominent people. It is what we do or do not do that matters, the way we act towards others, our conduct. Not mere words–––but our deeds are what count.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .4in;">
I want to make it very clear: to support Trump is to be both a racist and a misogynist. There can be no ambiguity or shillyshallying about this. This is an unpleasant truth for liberals and Trumpers alike, but one with which we must come to terms. Liberals see Trumpers as potential converts and don’t want to alienate them. But that’s a pipe dream. Meantime, there’s useful work to be done. Our constant reminder might cause some Trumpers to engage in analysis that is constructive over time, maybe even redemptive. But it is more likely that with our immediate efforts we can invigorate people of good will to ensure the defeat of Trumpism in elective office, and to protect our various institutions and those who have been harmed by it, as well as making more secure the rights of posterity. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .4in;">
In conclusion, to suggest, as many do, “Oh, I only support his policies, not his manners or what he says about blacks and women,” is a facile and convenient delusion. If you know or you ought to know Trump is a racist and a misogynist, then if you continue to support his having power over one of the three branches of government, one which gives him the power to use his racist and misogynistic predilections in practice and to implant them in policy, then <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">you</i> are by logical extension complicit in the same, and that, whether by indifference or by intention makes <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">you</i> a racist and a misogynist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To illustrate by a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">reductio ad absurdum</i> argument, imagine suggesting: “Well, I really don’t support Hitler’s policies towards the Jews, but I will support the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Führer</i> for his good policies on building the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Autobahn</i> and in making Germany great again after the debacle of the last war and our ensuing privations.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To suggest you like Trump’s tax policies and his tariffs, so you’ll support him <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">despite</i> his obvious racism and misogyny is no different, logically, than it would have been in the early 1930s to support Hitler because you like a few of his policies, too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">it is</i> a matter of severity, of weight and moment, of tradeoffs in policies–––not that Trump is Hitler, either–––but racism and misogyny <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">are</i> serious issues, issues that outweigh nearly all other policy issues other than existential ones such as survival itself, and it seems implausible that anyone with half a brain could or would think the nearly unhinged Trump is the key to the safety of the species or the nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To embrace Trump in power at all is emblematic of intention or indifference about racism and misogyny, and both amount to the same result. So, I don’t buy the excuses of many, such as Governor Romney, who is running for Senate in Utah, and who denounces Trump’s style but still embraces his policies. I’m sorry: you cannot separate out his racism and his treatment of women from the rest to suit yourself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I, for one, am done with all of their excuses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is simply incontrovertibly true that, if you support Trump, a clear-cut racist and misogynist, that you also effectively support both racism and misogyny, and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">you</i> are therefore a racist and misogynist. Most Trump supporters would deny they are either of these things, but not because they are not, but because in many circles it is deemed socially unacceptable. But the fact is, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">they are</i>, wittingly or unwittingly, and that is a distinction without a difference, and it’s time to call them out for it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is also time for liberals to stop giving others a pass and rationalizing their deplorable behavior. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Trumpism <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">is</b> racist and misogynistic</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .4in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;">Michael E. Berumen</span></b><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;"> is a retired CEO and a writer and lecturer on various topics living with his wife, Carol, outside of Fort Collins, Colorado. Berumen has given expert testimony to the U.S. Congress and other legislative and regulatory bodies on health insurance and health reform; appeared on television news broadcasts and been interviewed by many major press outlets, including the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wall Street Journal</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Los Angeles Times</i>; and he has served as a director on for-profit and non-profit boards. He has addressed many academic, business, and community audiences, internationally, and on a variety of topics, including philosophy, ethics, political theory, economics, mathematics, and science. He is the former editor of a scholarly journal published by the Bertrand Russell Society, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bulletin</i>. Among other things, in addition to many articles, he is the author of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business</i> (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">2003</i>).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .4in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-34263105181956191862013-03-15T23:50:00.000-07:002019-01-12T12:15:45.666-08:00Abolish the Anachronistic Second Amendment!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For some years now, after one horrific mass-shooting and another, many liberals begin their lamentations and calls for more reasonable gun control with a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">de rigueur</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>introductory qualification, “I support the Second Amendment, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">but</i>…” or “I support the right to bear arms and I own weapons myself, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">but</i>…”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here are my own <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">bona fides</i>: I grew up around guns and hunted as a youth with my father; I am an expert shot with an M-16 select-fire rifle as deemed by the U.S. Army, and I have the medal to prove it, and I own a rifle and have it on display (empty of ammo) in my house.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also believe the Second Amendment is an anachronism and ought to be abolished.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The prescribed “right” to bear arms is by man’s law, not by any natural law, not intuitively<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span> derived, and not mandated <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ex cathedra </i>by any Abrahamic tradition’s sacred text.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And prescribed rights can be un-prescribed.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The amendment was part of the Bill of Rights, the original ten amendments to the United States Constitution, with wording virtually lifted from original state constitutions written before the Constitution (ratified in 1788). During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776, individual states. The Second Amendment is concisely stated: </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
During the Colonial era, a militia was a group of citizens who were not professional soldiers or part of a standing army, and who gathered together as necessary to defend the community against untoward, outside forces, and, more specifically, in the Revolutionary era, against the British.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was a common perception among colonists before the Revolution that British soldiers of the regular army oppressed the citizenry, and there was also a general suspicion and loathing of standing armies and centralized power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After the Revolution, many in the country believed that a regular Army should be raised by the federal government only when necessitated to defend against foreign adversaries, and otherwise, that citizen soldiers armed with their own weapons (slow-loading muskets were used at the time and well into the 1840s) would be called when necessary to defend the local community. But it became apparent that loosely-organized citizen soldiers were not up to the task against the formidable British and its highly-trained professional troops, so the framers gave the new federal government the power to establish a standing army in peacetime.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So-called Anti-Federalists were suspicious of such power, however, and argued that such a standing army would encroach upon a state’s right to defend itself against tyranny. As a consequence, after the Constitution was ratified in 1788, its principal author, James Madison, soon proposed the Second Amendment as one part of a Bill of Rights (1791) in order to empower militias and to prevent the federal government from disarming them by ensuring that individuals, citizen soldiers, would be able to keep their arms. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is convenient for supporters of the Second Amendment to overlook the word “regulated” in the key phrase, “A well-regulated militia”–––much as it is for detractors to ignore the clause stating the purpose of a militia, namely, its “being necessary to the security of a free State”–––which as anyone knows who studied the period does not mean the freedom of the United States, but of the individual states within it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, clearly, the right for an individual to bear arms is undeniable by any literal or historical interpretation of the amendment. The reason for arming the individual is so the local community––a state––can defend itself against tyranny. No serious reading of the history of the period could cause one to conclude otherwise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With that said, the amendment, though pithy, is slapdash and ambiguous, and was drawn without full consideration of its ramifications, and, in particular, the changes in technology and the meaning of “Arms.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems likely that Madison intended the individual states to provide the regulations for the “well-regulated” militias, and that surely would impact <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">how</i> individuals possess and use weapons (as even Justice Scalia implied in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Heller v. DC)</i>, but unlikely that he could have predicted the types of weapons that became available over the next two hundred years, including rifles, semi-automatic and automatic weapons, portable missile launchers–––let alone smaller nuclear devices or biological weapons. It seems unlikely that he would have wanted just any citizen to own such devices, and yet, all fall under the definition of “arms”–––and the word is not qualified or narrowed in any way in the sentence. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fact is that a state militia of citizen soldiers, as conceived at the time of the Revolutionary War and the ensuing Constitutional Convention, is an unlikely opponent against the full might of the combined forces and armaments of the United States, today. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the picture of the lone individual NRA enthusiast emerging from his survivalist ranch with his AR-15 to defend himself against a stealth helicopter manned by jackbooted soldiers sent by the IRS or US Forest Service with missiles and 50-caliber machine guns seems far-fetched and even comically ludicrous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The amendment is poorly worded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not account for modernity. So-called states’ rights were of course of particular importance to many of the men of the Convention, and especially those who wanted to protect slavery and the privileges it provided, which is to say, the men of the South. These motives were gussied-up with talk of the dangers of centralized powers and local democracy, but democracy could hardly be said to have been a paramount concern other than in a very limited, privileged sense, namely, that white men who had property should have a vote, which is to say, men like themselves. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The American Civil War and the 13<sup>th</sup>, 14<sup>th</sup>, and 15<sup>th</sup> Amendments to the Constitution, and several court cases and legislation of the 1950s and 1960s, settled much of what these men sought to protect and to justify by “states’ rights.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And while I do not discount the utility of local control and the advantages of plurality, some things <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ought not</i> to be negotiable at a state or local level, which is why we have a Constitution in the first place, for some laws ought to apply everywhere and ought to be very difficult to change, not only to protect the majority of citizens, but also to protect minorities against majorities. This brings me to my last points.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: double windowtext 6.75pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: thin-thick-thin-medium-gap windowtext 6.75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: thin-thick-thin-medium-gap windowtext 6.75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;">
The Second Amendment has seen its day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>State militias are anachronistic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Individuals do not need assault weapons or nuclear weapons, or, in my view, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">any </i>weapon other than those used for hunting or self-defense, and then, with very strict limitations. There is a reason we have more accidental shootings, suicides, and murders than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">any</i> other advanced society in the world … both per capita and in absolute terms, and it is not because we are especially crazy or less homogenous or more naturally violent or for other concocted reasons: it is because we have millions of more guns, and compared to virtually anywhere else, we have unfettered access to them. The evidence is irrefutable. All human beings are to one degree or another naturally disposed to violence, something we aim to quell and inhibit with civilization, laws, upbringing, and conscience. Americans are not uniquely disposed to violence. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I hope that in time weapons will be abolished altogether, as hunting becomes a vestigial barbarism consigned to history, and self-defense is conducted by other means, perhaps even becoming unnecessary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Gun ownership, itself, not simply militias, ought to be strictly regulated, and it ought to be regulated at a federal level at a minimum, and states can be more but not certainly less restrictive. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is too complex an issue to boil down to a sentence or two or three, and because things change in technology and society, it is best handled by statute, and not addressed in the Constitution. Better simply to eliminate the Amendment in its entirety in my view. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: thin-thick-thin-medium-gap windowtext 6.75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: thin-thick-thin-medium-gap windowtext 6.75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;">
Now, I by no means believe that any of this is likely in the near term; the firearms industry’s lobby is too powerful, and the notion of it being an important “right” is too ingrained in the minds of many Americans, including many of our ciphering politicians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But most of these same Americans are older, and mortality being what it is, they will be gone soon enough. Meantime, our youth are proving more sensible, not nearly as oriented to hunting or the firing range, and they do not adhere to the faux macho and overwrought notion that they need to possess a weapon to defend themselves. So, I think it is something we liberals need to start being more forthright about, a more vocal influence on youth who yet might live to rid society of this specious and unnecessary amendment, and that we need to stop the needless and often insincere qualification, “I support the “right” to bear arms,” nonsense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Do we really</i>?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I, for one, do not. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: thin-thick-thin-medium-gap windowtext 6.75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: thin-thick-thin-medium-gap windowtext 6.75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Reprinted from <i>Liberal Resistance</i></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Michael Berumen is a retired business executive and published author on diverse topics including economics, mathematics, music, and philosophy. He has lectured to civic, academic, and business audiences internationally, and testified before the US Congress and local legislative and regulatory bodies as an expert witness. He has served on various boards of directors. Among other things, he is the author of the book Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business. A longtime Californian, he and his wife have live happily in retirement in Colorado</span></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-11870647330142664982013-03-15T23:49:00.000-07:002019-01-12T12:19:44.475-08:00On Fascism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: left;">The appellation </span><i style="text-align: left;">fascist</i><span style="text-align: left;"> or </span><i style="text-align: left;">fascism</i><span style="text-align: left;"> has been applied to many people and movements over the years, and more often than not, it has been used incorrectly etymologically, that is, in terms of its historical and philosophical origins. Most often it has been used by the left to describe people or movements on the right. To be sure, from time to time one hears people on the right using it against the left, too, and particularly in recent years.</span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span><span style="text-align: left;">In essence, it has become a convenient pejorative that has a certain desired impact, namely, it offends, for it is hard to imagine a political outlook that could be much worse, even though I suspect most who use it (or deride its use, for that matter) are unfamiliar with its historical meaning, that is, other than in the most superficial sense that it applied to certain European dictators and regimes in the 20</span><sup style="text-align: left;">th</sup><span style="text-align: left;"> century. A facile use of the designation has had the unfortunate effect of causing many otherwise sober-minded people to overlook its proper use, and, what I view as particularly dangerous, there has been a failure to recognize when it is the appropriate label.</span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span><span style="text-align: left;">By any other name, and whether people want to acknowledge it or not, and that includes some soothsayers and deniers in academia and among the chattering and pundit classes, </span><i style="text-align: left;">fascism</i><span style="text-align: left;"> is definitely on the rise.</span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have studied <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism </i>and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascistic</i> movements for much of my life. I have read its major philosophical progenitors, mostly French, Italian, and German thinkers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and I have studied its development and practice in several localities with some notable differences, but also with some common themes. And based on this research, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe there are very definite worrisome <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascistic</i> trends that obtain today in Latin America, the Middle East, Europe, and in the United States, trends spearheaded by leaders who evince both <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascistic</i> doctrines and styles of leadership, whether or not they are themselves fully aware of it from an intellectual standpoint. Comparisons to Hitler or Mussolini are often overused and usually inaccurate in terms of some of the unique personal capacities and traits of these men versus some today who are operating on the public stage. Both men were creatures of their times and influenced by particular upbringings and experiences. They also were quite different from one another intellectually and temperamentally. With that said, the writings and practices of both are useful as propaedeutics in understanding the essential characteristics of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i>, both as seen by its principal actors, historically, and to help us understand how it might be manifested today. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let me begin by stating unequivocally,<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> Fascism</i> does not fit in the traditional ideological categories of right and left, which is not the way pundits representing either ideological extreme would like to have it, namely, by suggesting that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i> represents the ideology of the other side. The fact that this is even possible by both sides partly explains why <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i> can appeal to many people even of disparate orientations, for it incorporates principles from both the right and the left. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fascism</i> is nearly always presented by academics as a species of far right-wing politics, but that is both inaccurate and overly simplistic. It is more comforting for the typical intellectual or academic to put it that way since he is more often than not of a liberal mindset. No less than an authority than Hitler himself thought Nazism, a species of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i>, transcended ideologies on the left and right, borrowed from both, and was what he called “syncretic.” <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fascism</i> is also sometimes characterized as or mistaken for a species of populism, and while it certainly has populist overtones, it is also quite different from it, indeed, in its fully-realized form, it is the exact opposite of populism, insofar as it is the leader who becomes the embodiment of the state and its peoples. To be sure, populist political techniques can and certainly will be used to attain power, but the goal of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i> is not in any way, shape, or form democratic, indeed, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">it is anti-democratic</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many on the left have viewed some recent movements as populist, when, in fact, they are far more <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascistic </i>in nature. They are guilty of mistaking popular appeal with populism, which at its root is a democratic movement in support of the rights and power of ordinary people. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fascism</i> is about the power of the state and its leader, which subsumes the interests of the people. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The remarkable thing about <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism i</i>s its relative incoherency as a doctrine, as it does not offer a systematic view of the world as with a typical ideology or political philosophy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As much as anything, fascism is about the behavior of its leader, his style, and it is highly transactional in the sense that whatever facilitates the attainment of its goal, which ultimately is the power and the identity of the leader with the state, a leader who is seen as the solution to all problems and who becomes the embodiment and incarnation of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">vox populi</i>, is what it will adopt as its method or praxis. And whatever stands in the way of this goal simply will be rejected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is the key to understanding <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i>: <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">it is about power</b>. It is at once transactional and utilitarian. Part of the problem and reason that many have failed to recognize <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i> when they see it is that they are looking for its leaders to delineate a systematic and coherent doctrine when they should be looking instead for personal behaviors and some general characteristics. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have written elsewhere at some length and in several articles why I believe Trumpism is a manifestation of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascist</i> tendencies in the United States, and why I believe that Trump is himself a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascist</i>, even without his knowing that he is, as he is an utterly and unreservedly unlettered man, someone who is an entirely instinctual vessel of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i>. But my purpose, here, is not to deconstruct Trumpism or provide examples of his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascistic</i> ways and beliefs. Rather, it is to provide a general <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">précis</i> on some of the principal attributes of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i> insofar as it can be codified in order to provide a guide that might prove useful in examining recent and future events in the United States and in other countries. Here are ten characteristics that were present in the major fascistic movements of the last century and are reappearing today. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;">
</div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Fascism</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> is a form of hyper-nationalism that capitalizes (note, that is as much a method as a goal) on two principal outlooks, namely, strong patriotic feelings, often founded on a mythical past that never occurred or that is highly distorted, and accompanied by the vilification of groups seen detrimental to both the nation’s purity and the national interest–––groups most often represented by an ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation, cosmopolitan elites, and outsiders more generally. Both jingoism and </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">revanchist</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> claims are both common aspects of </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">fascism.</i></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> While there certainly are elements of anti-elitist populism, power to the masses is not the goal, indeed, far from it. The people are but a means to an end, and the irony is that ordinary people are willing participants, for, truth be known, democracy is not their goal, they approve of their authoritarian leader(s). </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Fascism</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> seeks to co-opt those presently in power, for power is its ultimate objective, and because it is more than willing to use utilitarian means to attain its ends, it will curry favor with economic, political, and intellectual elites wherever and whenever it can to secure it, and it will take full advantage of existing institutions and laws to accomplish its ends.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Related to the last point, </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">fascism</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> freely borrows from both socialist and capitalist doctrines, in that obtaining and maintaining power is its goal, and despite railing against economic elites when it suits its purpose, </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">fascism </i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">itself does not entail a systematic economic doctrine other than that which is seen as necessary to attain its ends and to benefit the state, which includes subsuming whatever economic power or centers of influence might be necessary to attain those ends, whether through markets, corporate interests, or popular measures with the masses. It is perhaps no coincidence that Mussolini was once a socialist involved in the labor movement (which he would destroy), and that Nazism had a vibrant socialist wing in its earlier years, one eventually quashed (during the Night of the Long Knives) by the mid-thirties and replaced by a kind of quasi-capitalism, an economic system best described as state corporatism or crony capitalism, and in the case of both Italy and Germany, laden with considerable kleptocracy activity among some of its leaders.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"> Conspiratorial and exclusionary thinking about groups and forces aligned against the movement is part and parcel to all <i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">fascistic </i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">movements, and they play central roles in the rallying cries of its leaders, whether the bogeyman is international Jewry, Muslims, a particular ethnic group, the bourgeoisie, large corporate interests, liberal elites, communists, or the media. These groups are always conspiring against the legitimate powers and are usually blameworthy for problems past and present. Victimhood is a common feature, as problems or deficiencies must be attributed to others.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"> When out of power, <i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">fascistic</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> movements always declaim against the legitimacy of those in power as usurpers and criminals who, through their machinations, rig outcomes and are not the true representatives of the people or the nation.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"> Every successful <i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">fascistic</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> movement has been led by a charismatic and often bombastic demagogue who claims to be the embodiment of the nation, the vessel of the national will, and as the exceptional person without whom the nation is unable to prosper or survive. The state and its leader effectively becomes one, and unlike some other forms of totalitarianism or authoritarianism, the interests of the state are inextricably tied to the leader who, for all practical purposes, is seen as the state made flesh.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">A </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">fascistic</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> movement will often view violence as a just means of achieving its ends, whether outside of or through the state, and ironically, law and order are common code words used to justify it. Calls for violence or hints of violent recourse against opponents are common. There is often an exaggerated, hyper-masculinity on parade, with the glorification of toughness and strength and power. There is a display of an authoritarian bearing, and the leader’s followers are unabashed admirers of it. In the modern era, violence may be more symbolic through posturing and threats than real, but hints of it through synecdoche and metonyms are often used to great effect in speeches and at rallies.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"> Despite the popular appeals to “law and order,” a trope and signal calling card of authoritarianism more generally, the <i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">fascistic</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> conception of law lies outside of any legislative or judicial proceedings or the kinds of protections or due process enshrined by constitutional authority. Often the law is construed as that which is willed by the individual or individuals in power. In other words, the liberal democratic principle of rule of law is essentially discarded.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"> An attribute of all <i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">fascistic</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> movements is the creation of alternate realities, often with an adamant and repetitive disregard for the truth, even in the face of abundant veridical evidence to the contrary, especially when it serves the ends of its partisans or when said evidence conflicts with doctrine or the interests of the leadership.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"> Symbolism is often an important aspect of <i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">fascism</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">, especially patriotic symbols that evoke feelings of group identity and shared destiny. The Nazis, in particular, made effective use of this. Stagecraft is of particular importance, including patriotic regalia, lighting, and music. The use of memes and symbols to vilify opponents is ever present in </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">fascistic </i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">movements–––against those who would jeopardize the national interest from within or from without–––or they are used to encapsulate the magnificence of the world envisioned versus the depravity or inferiority of the alternative are prominent in </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">fascistic </i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">movements. Making the nation great as opposed to what internal or external malefactors have done or would do.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span></li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p><br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="border-bottom: double windowtext 6.75pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: thin-thick-thin-medium-gap windowtext 6.75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; padding: 0in; text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My list is not exhaustive, by any means, and there are variations on these themes and on the importance that each plays in a particular strain of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i>. But I think that both in terms of its underlying philosophy and where it has been put into practice, these ten characteristics encapsulate the major features of a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascistic</i> regime, which, to no small degree, is a is inseparable from the style and persona of its leadership, for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i> is not simply a matter of ideology, but one of personality. There are several very disturbing aspects of fascistic outlook, to be sure–––both in terms of its aspirations as well as its underlying motivations and what actuates it as a movement. Of particular concern, however, is the fact that it is quite dismissive of the rule of law and it is not rooted in any overarching conception of justice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fascism</i>, the benefit of the governed is ultimately seen as whatever benefits the ruler, and the ruler is in effect the embodiment, indeed, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">raison d'être</i> for the state. It is a critical error to look for a highly-systematic doctrine or an overarching <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">weltanschauung</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fascism is at bottom very transactional and utilitarian in the sense that the power of the leader and his identity with the national interest are paramount. There are some typical tools that I’ve enumerated, but these do not in and of themselves describe the endgame, and it is easy to confuse means with ends when analyzing the fascistic state and those who would lead it. Not so long ago that kind of regime resulted in the deaths and suffering of millions, and many millions more would sacrifice their lives to eradicate it from the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What will be said of our time and of our generation if all that loss proves to have been in vain? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Reprinted from <i>Liberal Resistance</i></span></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: thin-thick-thin-medium-gap windowtext 6.75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Michael Berumen is a retired business executive and published author on diverse topics including economics, mathematics, music, and philosophy. He has lectured to civic, academic, and business audiences internationally, and testified before the U.S. Congress and local legislative and regulatory bodies as an expert witness. He has served on various boards of directors. Among other things, he is the author of the book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business</i>. A longtime Californian, he and his wife now live happily in retirement in Colorado.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-72678587548329584162013-03-15T23:48:00.000-07:002019-11-10T13:03:05.313-08:00The American Civil War: Why it Continues and How Finally to End It<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoHeader">
<span style="font-size: 9.0pt;">Reprinted from <i>Liberal Resistance</i> 4-1-18<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoHeader">
<span style="font-size: 9.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoHeader">
<span style="font-size: 9.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">The traitor Robert E. Lee, head of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, may have surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant at Wilmer McLean’s house at Appomattox in 1865, but that did not really end the American Civil War. It only ended (other than some isolated skirmishes in the months that followed) the military conflict between the United States and the disloyal secessionists. Major segments of the latter were never reconciled to defeat, did not accept many of the principles that impelled the victorious Union, and would live to fight another day by other means. Indeed, that battle by “other means”––––political means–––continues to this day, albeit, the parties are no longer easily defined by geography. While it is true that the locus of the ideological heirs of the Confederacy continues to be predominately among whites in southern states, the outlook that defines it has also infiltrated other states. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For lack of more descriptive appellations, I characterize this particular idea of “politics as war by other means” (inverting von Clausewitz’s aphorism) as a struggle between what I call <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">liberal cosmopolitanism</i> and the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">neo-Confederacy</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">It is not my chief purpose, here, to provide a scholarly disquisition on the Confederate outlook of the 1860s and how it is manifested today in more modern terms in what I call the neo-Confederacy. At the risk of oversimplification, therefore, allow me to summarize its major attributes, which I believe consist of five major elements, and in no particular order of importance, recognizing that there are variations on the theme of each with weightings that differ among individuals and sub-groups. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">First, the neo-Confederate ethos entails a sense of religious superiority, which is to say, a belief theirs is at once a greater and more appropriate kind of religiosity versus the more secularized society or religions one finds among the economic and cultural elites, usually the more educated in more liberal urban centers of the nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These are typically Protestant religions, and especially among the more Evangelical and Pentecostal varieties, though it must be noted, almost exclusively among white peoples of European origin. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Second, there is a belief that liberal cosmopolitans have strayed from the kind of country the neo-Confederates imagine the Founders and Framers intended, one harkening back to a Rockwellian-style depiction of the halcyon days of a mythological white America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The hagiography surrounding major figures of the rebellious states during the Civil War, especially military figures, and plenty of iconography and symbolism in admiration of the Confederacy, are all emblematic of this mythmaking. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Third, there is a shared antipathy for what is seen as an economic hegemony by unscrupulous, elite money powers with global interests, interests often typified by Wall Street moneymen, and additionally, today, Silicon Valley techno-barons. In some quarters there are disturbing, exaggerated, and not-so-subtle reminders that some of these moneyed interests, as well as major media outlets, are led by Jews. Then, of course, there are the liberal denizens of academia who are intent on corrupting the young with anti-American and anti-religious ideas, and notions of equality among the races and sexes, even acceptance of sexual deviancy from the supposed norm. The focus of many of these elites is on investing capital, in science, or in technological pursuits, as opposed to worthier forms of labor–––and all of it is at the expense of the “little man”––––a perpetual victim of hidden, dark forces. Victimhood by the impingement of outsiders is a particularly important trait shared by both the old and the neo-Confederacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">These elites denigrate the neo-Confederates prized values of masculinity, womanhood, hearth, and godliness, bringing us to the fourth attribute, namely, eschewing multi-culturalism and globalism, in other words: cosmopolitanism, per se–––an outlook that often attends financial power, affluence, and education. Cosmopolitanism is of course closely aligned with liberalism: openness, freedom, individual rights, tolerance, and free expression. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">And fifth, and certainly not least of all, there’s the matter of race (a rather bogus concept, biologically speaking, I hasten to add, and largely a social construct, but one that nonetheless communicates for our limited purpose)–––and an imagined loss of prestige and power in relation to those who are seen as inferior or as outsiders, resentments reinforced by an underlying and nearly visceral tribal contempt for “the other.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">By way of excursus, I should point out that people in the neo-Confederacy do not suggest a return to slavery, as such, or even a major rollback of key civil rights laws. Most even deny that they have racist or ethnocentric outlooks, though their language and behaviors quickly belie these protestations. What they really want when one adds it all up is to ensure that those of European heritage maintain suzerainty and privilege over persons of non-European origin, and especially those who are seen as inferior, threatening, or both, or, at the very least, that they not lose the rightful power and prestige they (usually imagined, since the working classes seldom had either) believe has been taken away from them. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">That African Americans, for example, hold prestigious positions in entertainment or sports, and that they are entitled to enjoy facilities with equal public accommodation, are not of special or untoward consequence to most neo-Confederates. However, that African Americans might hold key public offices, and especially the presidency, or that they seek to change white privilege in other cultural or economic arenas that are not viewed as being tantamount to minstrel work for everyone's entertainment are, in combination, seen as a bridge too far. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">After the “surrender” at Appomattox, there was ample reason to be hopeful about the prospects of recasting the South and going about it in a way that was conducive to reconciliation. The latter objective was clearly stated in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural, where he said, “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves…” Lincoln’s assassination and the disastrous tenure of his successor, Andrew Johnson, set all of that behind, though the key 13<sup>th</sup>, 14<sup>th</sup>, and 15<sup>th</sup> Amendments abolishing slavery, bestowing citizenship, and ensuring voting rights had been put into motion and were all ratified by the states by early 1870 with considerable pressure from Radical Republicans in Congress and the executive branch. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Notwithstanding the foregoing Amendments, white southerners wasted no time after the war in establishing the so-called Black Codes, which, among other things, restricted black people's right to own property, conduct commerce, lease land, or move freely through public spaces.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After Johnson left office, President Grant attempted to adopt what he believed more closely comported with Lincoln’s vision and to enforce that in the erstwhile rebellious states. Grant spent a great deal of his time eradicating the Ku Klux Klan, squashing various disaffected militia groups, and enforcing suffrage and representation. However, by his second term, the Radical Republicans in Congress had lost much of their power; the abolitionist wind that had hitherto bellowed Republican sails had died down, and the appetite for funding Grant’s reconstruction and regulatory efforts had seriously waned. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">After Grant left office, the Republican Party became increasingly aligned with commercial and more parochial Northern interests, thereby enabling southern whites and northern interlopers willing to exploit the situation to roll back much of the progress that had been made. Soon, under Hayes and successor Republican and Democratic presidents, powerful whites were able to shut out blacks from the state legislatures in the South, and they instituted apartheid-type laws, widely known as Jim Crow laws–––laws that mandated segregation in nearly all aspects of life. These would last well into the second half of the next century, indeed, in this writer’s lifetime. They implemented various impediments to any hope of political representation or financial prosperity and enforced what amounted to indentured servitude, effectively removing all economic and political power from African Americans. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">In addition to various exclusionary laws, it wasn't long after Grant's departure that local militias, including a renewed, burgeoning Klan and like organizations, terrorized African Americans to keep them in line. Many blacks fled to northern urban areas and to the West Coast to escape these privations. There they would encounter problems, too, for racial animosity was not confined to the South, though perhaps not to the same degree, and they were not as bereft of allies in political, commercial, and organized labor circles as in the South. Moreover, there were opportunities to establish major enclaves that created both economic and cultural advantages in urban areas without many of the kinds of impediments found in the South. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Fast forward to the 20<sup>th</sup> Century–––the South remained essentially the same until the mid-1960s, a virtual apartheid nation within a nation, and from the perspective of an African American, a totalitarian dictatorship. In the 1930s during the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to cobble together strange bedfellows of Southern Democrats, northern labor interests, academic and intellectual classes, and many African Americans–––a great many of whom had been Republicans prior to the 1930s–––thereby creating a coalition of unlikely partners formed out of shared economic interests and hardships that affected everyone. These were not natural alliances, and least of all, with the racist, agrarian, non-union, insular, and relatively poor whites in the South, which would nevertheless remain Democratic until the 1960s and 1970s. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Fissures in FDR’s coalition began to show in the early 1950s with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Brown v. the Board of Education</i> and the ensuing forced integration of public schools, and these breaks were furthered by the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964, and capped by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, arguably the three most important pieces of domestic legislation since the 1860s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>President Lyndon Johnson lamented to his aide Bill Moyers that his having strong-armed civil rights legislation through Congress would result in ending the Democratic Party's stronghold over the South for the foreseeable future, but he knew history was on his side. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Johnson’s prediction would come true in relatively short order, as cynical Republicans used states’ rights (often code for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">anti</i>-civil rights legislation) and other effective memes to foment dissension and attract disaffected Southern Democrats. Richard Nixon’s “silent majority” and “law-and-order” planks, not-so-subtle code for preserving white power and culture, drove the penultimate nail in the coffin in terms of Democratic hegemony in the South.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And Ronald Reagan drove in the final one with his rhetorical flourishes of robust patriotism and military prowess, always a selling point among many working and middle-class Southerners. In particular–––and ironically, championed by a twice-married, Hollywood man–––Reagan would wean Evangelicals from the Democrats with help from the likes of Jerry Falwell of the misnamed Moral Majority. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">In a matter of two decades, the South became a bastion of Republicanism. All this was shored up by state party operatives who ensured that gerrymandered districts and voting restrictions of various kinds would establish and preserve disproportionate power to their national numbers in congressional elections. Meantime, these new culturally-driven, revanchist Republicans drove away many of the cloth coat, country-club Republicans of the business class, and more liberal and moderate or libertarian Republicans of the northern and western states, if not to the Democrats (which was simultaneously losing more moderate and conservative-minded members), then to unaligned, independent and non-partisan status, where they would pick and choose based on candidates rather than based on party affiliation. Thereby, of all things, the Republican Party, once the Party of Lincoln, became a party that represented many of the values of its once mortal enemy, the old Confederacy cast anew. It cynically sought to capitalize on cultural grievances and on racial (now expanded beyond African Americans) antagonisms while, at the same time, maintaining its uncomfortable standing with certain commercial interests, where the self-interested financial motives of an otherwise more cosmopolitan and socially liberal minority of powerbrokers would result in their overlooking the racism, religiosity, and the vulgarianism of the rubes whose votes were necessary to secure their various tax advantages and provide a bulwark against regulatory incursions. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">It is worth noting, here, that according to a recent Pew study, 39% of the electorate identify as independents, 32% as Democrats, and 23% as Republicans. Thus, a plurality of voters is now unaligned, while the two parties have become increasingly polarized without identifiable moderates in either party or liberals among Republicans or conservatives among Democrats. This is very different than fifty years ago when both parties had conservatives, moderates, and liberals. The difference-making target for both parties, nowadays, is to win based on turnout and attracting a sufficient number of independent voters on the margins.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">While the southern states remain the stronghold of the neo-Confederacy, it has certainly established footholds in other parts of the nation sharing some of the grievances and resentments previously adduced. So-called “hard hat Democrats” of the Nixon era were the progenitors of a movement of many disaffected, white working people in urban and suburban areas that came over to the Republican Party, which not many years before had been seen as the party of the commercial merchant and big-business classes, antithetical to the interests of blue-collar workers. Increasingly, the Republican Party allied itself with several of the neo-Confederates’ cultural shibboleths and totems, such as religion, anti-abortion, anti-equal rights for women (e.g., the failed Equal Rights Amendment), anti-gay rights, and, of course, the firearms lobby embodied by the NRA–––and, somewhat ironically, despite its long track record of isolationism and pacifism prior to World War II, it re-branded itself as the party of robust defense and patriotism, especially under Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Along comes Donald Trump, a flamboyant and unlettered conman, a feckless draft-dodger and gauche playboy, but who, with a kind of intuitive marketing savvy into people’s darker natures, was able to exploit all of the grievances and resentments characterizing the neo-Confederacy by selling his distinctly American brand of fascism. Trump’s bombastic rhetoric and faux hyper-masculinity appealed to many working-class whites, and his racist overtones attracted all manner of kooks from out of the political recesses into the limelight. Whilst Democratic and even Republican cosmopolitans were appalled at his vulgar taste and habits, his supporters reveled in it, for they represented what they would choose to be like had they the money and power. With more than a little help from Russia, James Comey, and Facebook, he secured an Electoral College victory with only 78,000 votes more than his opponent in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">So, here we are today, a nation nearly as polarized as we were in 1861 at the outbreak of the Civil War, proper–––and, perhaps, with just about the same proportions in terms of the bifurcation of sentiments as measured by population–––then roughly 70% in free states, 30% in slaveholding states (the latter consisting of the Confederate and so-called Border States).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Republican Party, notwithstanding some of its establishment types who adhere to a more conventional brand of fiscal conservatism, is solidly in the hands of the neo-Confederates. Some of the commercial interests (e.g., the Koch brothers, among others) and those establishment types clinging tenuously (and cravenly) to power (such as Paul Ryan), and some voters among the more educated business class, are cynically willing to overlook the semi-literates of the unwashed Republican constituency that reliably comes out to vote the party line, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>all in order to protect their sinecures and fulfill their more parochial economic interests (such as lower taxes), and strangely enough, promote interests that are more often than not diametrically opposed to many of those among the less affluent who vote the party line. But Trumpism is beginning to force a change, and now even establishment politicians are taking stances in economic policy and foreign affairs that would have Republicans like Ronald Reagan, among others, rolling in his grave. The winking and nodding of the Romney types at the underclasses while going about feathering their nests will no longer cut it. White trash is now in charge of Congress and the Presidency. Only the unwieldy, large bureaucracies and the courts hold out, but for how long is anyone’s guess before irreversible damage is done. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">With all of this said, in the final analysis, we must acknowledge that we are divided along tribal lines, by this I mean the liberal cosmopolitans and neo-Confederates, and this is despite the patina of logical analysis and our self-serving sense of being right on both logic and facts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The great Scottish philosopher David Hume was correct when he said nowhere in nature will one find a moral <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fact</i>, but only facts (empirically verifiable matters or tautologies) and values (our preferences and passions), and that moral judgments are judgments of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">value</i> and not matters of fact. And political ends are essentially moral judgments writ large, to borrow from Plato’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Republic</i>. In other words, our political ends, the kind of world in which we want to live, represent nothing more than passions, emotions, desires–––<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">our values</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And as Hume said, we cannot show that a value is something we <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ought</i> to desire without conjuring other values, and these can never be justified through ratiocination alone, and our suggestions to the contrary always rely on a kind of circular reasoning or they are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ex cathedra</i>, based on some authority (e.g., faith in Scripture) rather than founded in logic or empirical findings. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Thus, reason can help us <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">achieve</i> our ends, but our ends, in the final analysis, represent desires quite apart from anything mandated by reason. What this means is that politics is at its roots essentially an emotional business insofar as our political ideals go (e.g., liberty, equality, caring for the weak, peace, even survival of the species). It is about the kind of world we <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">desire</i>, not something commanded by reason or a natural law mandated by the cosmos. It is impossible to argue for these ends with logic and facts, and that is because logic and facts have little to do with our preferences</span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">. That Humean outlook is unsettling to many, though I find no reason to think he was wrong, and philosophers struggle today to find a way around it, but as far as I have observed, without any notable success. </span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Then there is the matter of the group to which we belong, that is, the clan or tribe that shares our worldview, perhaps most often comprised of those who share our background and culture or of what we aspire to have for the good life–––the group that gives us the greatest sense of belonging and, most importantly, that confirms and reinforces our own beliefs, and, in this case, our preferred state of affairs, a shared outlook on what the world <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ought</i> to look like.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The world the neo-Confederate desires and the one desired by liberal cosmopolitans are simply not the same. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">It is a commonplace to say we all desire the same thing; it is the kind of thing one hears from politicians seeking to mediate between competing views–––“we all want the same thing,” but it is untrue, for we really don’t want the same thing. I’m sorry, but coming from a white trash background myself, I can say with some authority, many among what the cosmopolitan elites perceive as the “rabble” actually <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">prefer</i> their rabbling ways,. They have little or no interest in the things that float the boats of liberal cosmopolitans. And the ultimate vulgarian now residing in the White House exemplifies some of those very preferences. Indeed, what liberal cosmopolitans often fail to acknowledge is that there is equal contempt for one another’s worldview. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">I learned long ago as a young social activist of the left not to take seriously the left’s insincere call for “power to the people,” for the people imagined are a mere abstraction, and often not really how “the people” are at all. With that said, though, there are certainly shared interests among all, and these are the interests that can serve to bring us together, to ameliorate tensions, and at least begin the process of conversion via group identity. In other words, we must grow the tribe to change things. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">We human beings are naturally tribal. Our social habits are firmly ingrained, hard-wired over many millennia of evolution since our earliest primate ancestors lived in trees. However, reason does allow us to overcome some of these tendencies. The biggest tool we have is language, which is to say, the ability to communicate.</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">We are not going to change our nature or the nature of those we oppose by argument, because our political desires, on both sides, are not ultimately based on facts or logic, </span><i style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">but on feeling</i><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">, no matter how we gussy them up with rational window dressing. We will not cause others to abandon their tribe and join ours through logical analysis, notwithstanding how we perceive their interests. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Here’s what I am driving at: we must appeal to their </span><i style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">preferences</i><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"> to the extent that is possible. We must appeal to their emotional needs. This is something Trump understood, though his understanding of demagoguery is at some instinctive level rather than a cerebral one. Sometimes our preferences versus those of others are sufficiently outweighed by differences such that conversion is a lost cause. I suspect a portion of the neo-Confederacy (which I am guessing is about 30% of the electorate) is intractable. Let us say it is half or 15%.</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">That is a manageable number. If we can broaden the cosmopolitan tribe to 85% of the electorate, in a generation or so we can further marginalize the minority of fascistic neo-Confederates. I must add, though, that a liberal cosmopolitan is not necessarily a partisan, though philosophically speaking, the Democratic Party is likely to be more closely aligned to her outlook. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">I am temperamentally ill-suited for politics as a practitioner; however, I know as an analyst, and recognizing of our tribal nature, that to defeat the neo-Confederates we must both expand the number of liberal cosmopolitans and motivate those already among us who are apathetic into political action. Democrats must play the key role, I believe. </span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">There are four major tactics we must employ to conquer the neo-Confederacy once and for all.</span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">First, we must motivate the unaligned and the young to vote and to work to defeat Trumpism as an immediate objective. Many independents are suspicious of or outright against both Trump and many of the defining characteristics of the neo-Confederacy, and recent polls show that the young reject Trumpism overwhelmingly. The young are who we need to grow the Democratic Party, and represent its best hope for the future. We must convince the independents to align with us, even if temporarily, and the latter, our youth, to go to the polls in all elections and vote their beliefs, which are for the most part aligned with the Democrats. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Second, we must convert the softer neo-Confederates by appealing to as many emotional interests that we have in common–––desires and preferences–––to the degree practicable, all the while without sacrificing our most important principles, which is to say, the most vital ends of our worldview (justice, economic opportunity for all, tolerance, equality under the law, etc.). From a practical perspective, this is going to mean emphasizing more parochial issues that will vary by locality–––kitchen table, pocketbook issues–––and not just grand, national social themes. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Third, we must get all those who presently identify as Democrats to vote! It remains the majority party, but has embarrassingly shameful and lackluster performance in attending the polls, and as a consequence, its political power has been materially diminished in recent decades.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Fourth, once in power, Democrats must work in state legislatures and in the courts to put a stop to the gerrymandering of congressional districts by establishing non-partisan commissions, even if that sometimes works against them. And of considerable importance, the Democratic Party must reinvigorate itself and put special emphasis on improving economic prosperity and security; providing healthcare and education for everyone; and of particular importance, rekindling hope in the possibility of upward mobility, this being a defining characteristic of the American Dream since its founding, one that has been diminished in recent decades. In other words, if we want to end this seemingly interminable war, we must defeat the neo-Confederacy by shrinking it and expanding our tribe, and not simply by condemning the former, but by making the latter the obvious choice. We must do so by appealing to our shared interests––––our preferences and desires for the kind of world we want to live in–––and motivating people to act on them at the ballot box. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">I would like the Democratic Party to be the dominant party, much as it has been for decades, which is not to say that I want it to be a unitary power. I would also like to see a vibrant, responsible center-right party, a loyal opposition, for I know Democrats do not have a monopoly on good judgment, and it is good to have a check on power to protect minority interests. But the Republican Party can no longer be considered to be either “responsible” or “loyal”–––or even a center-right party. It has many fascistic overtones, and fascism transcends and stands apart from traditional right-left classifications. The GOP now harbors views and practices that are antithetical to the American ethos or the kind of country that so many of our forbearers aspired to create, ideals for which many have sacrificed and suffered, indeed, have even given their lives to defend. The Republican Party has cynically dabbled in supporting our enemies by either enabling or ignoring the nefarious activities of those who directly do so. It is as far removed from being the party of Abraham Lincoln or Charles Sumner as the modern Democratic Party is unlike the party of Stephen Douglas or Jefferson Davis. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">I don’t know if the Republican Party can recover its bearings, but I rather doubt that it will or that it even can. To my mind, now is time for the remaining responsible elements of the GOP and unaligned conservatives to form a new party, one that represents true conservatism, as opposed to the fascistic and neo-Confederate strains that have spread like a malignant cancer in the GOP––––a conservatism that in its modern incarnation is but another species of a liberal democratic outlook, an outlook that seeks to optimize individual liberty and prosperity, one where everyone has a say, and with justice and equal treatment under the law for all–––the kind of conservatism once promoted by William F. Buckley and promoted today by the likes of George Will and Brett Stephens<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And along with Democrats, together, we might finally realize the original intention of Abraham Lincoln, and while respecting our several differences, consign the seeds of hateful discord and the emotional militancy that polarize us today to the dustbin of history. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">END</span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: double windowtext 6.75pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: thin-thick-thin-medium-gap windowtext 6.75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: thin-thick-thin-medium-gap windowtext 6.75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Michael Berumen is a retired business executive and published author on diverse topics including economics, mathematics, music, and philosophy. He has lectured to civic, academic, and business audiences internationally, and testified before the US Congress and local legislative and regulatory bodies as an expert witness. He has served on various boards of directors. Among other things, he is the author of the book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business</i>.</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">A longtime Californian, he and his wife live happily in retirement in Colorado.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-49613363268012556762013-03-15T23:41:00.000-07:002019-01-13T13:13:00.345-08:00We’re Just Whistling Past the Graveyard if We Don’t Focus on Defeating Republicans at Every Level<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p> (Reprinted from Liberal Resistance Feb 21, 2018)</o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the wake of the most recent school shooting tragedy in Florida, there is the customary hue and cry of media cognoscenti, gun control activists, and many politicians professing disgust. Social media are abuzz with outrage and commentary. And now, even high school students, the most recent and all-too-often the victims of this mayhem, have commendably taken to the streets. The leading terrorist organization in the United States, the National Rifle Association (NRA), is silent as it always is immediately following such events, keeping its proverbial powder dry and dealing with its legislative lackeys in private, while the public outcry dies down and people move on to something new and shiny. And politicians who depend on the NRA’s largess are offering their usual “thoughts and prayers,” simultaneously admonishing those who speak of reform for “politicizing” the issue, as though that very admonishment and anything else a politician says is not “politicizing” one thing or another. The bolder ones say we ought to look into this, but then they do nothing. All of this “<i>Déjà vu</i> all over again” – and not long after the Orlando nightclub and Las Vegas concert incidents, which both provoked similar clamors and plaintive pleas for reform. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
My prediction is that nothing substantive will happen at the federal level, that past will be prologue, and that if any legislation occurs in the Congress, it will be relatively meaningless window-dressing, perhaps at most some tweaking of background checks (begging the question: once we have the information, <b><i>what</i></b><i> is it we’re going to do with it</i>?) and raising the minimum age for assault weapons, as though 21 is magically a clear-cut demarcation between sanity and lunacy, or between our pacific and violent natures. And then, if such new laws are passed, politicians will crow about their accomplishment and what bipartisanship can do (there won’t be much of that, I can assure you). But I will believe it, even innocuous reform, when I see it. I hope I’m wrong. Most likely we will see some things at the state level, but that is hardly a solution as long as people can freely purchase and carry assault munitions across state lines. Which is why federal law is necessary. The fact is, though, there are three unpleasant realities we must face both as liberals and as a nation. Permit me to encapsulate them. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First, there is the reality that the NRA is nothing less than a sponsor of terrorism and most, even liberals, fail to acknowledge it. Some of us profess as much, but a great many are in denial and simply unwilling to say it, for their neighbors, friends, father, boss … even they might presently or might have previously belonged to it. Much as my father did for many years. Who, after all, wants to say they pay dues to a terrorist organization, and isn’t it really just a sporting outdoorsmen’s and gun safety organization? And, for Heaven’s sake, we don’t see Wayne LaPierre himself out there waiving an AR-15 around and threatening anyone like some unhinged Mullah. The last matter first. The fact that NRA management is not out there shooting people does not militate against the fact that they wantonly and knowingly promote crowding the country with weapons specifically designed to kill people, and that they effectively use largess to prevent any stoppage or reduction of sales resulting from protections that might stop the wrong people from getting them. As for being a sporting organization, that is simply nonsense, for it stopped being sports enthusiasts’ organization decades ago. It is a lobbying organization for the firearms industry, pure and simple, an industry whose callous utilitarian outlook mandates that profits supersede safety and lives, and declaims against any impingement on access to guns as a slippery slope to ending gun ownership, when in fact it relates more to the prospect of reducing profits, an unacceptable outcome. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with lobbying on behalf of an industry in my view, mind you. But there is when the preponderance of evidence shows the products are certain to be used for criminal and lethal outcomes, and at a cost that is far greater than any possible societal benefit (thereby nullifying the silly argument one hears about outlawing knives and cars). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Let’s get something straight by using an analogy: consider the arms dealer selling weapons to rogue states or terrorists. If such an entity sells arms designed to kill to people to bad actors that will use them illegally to destroy lives and property that results in terror, then that dealer in effect <b><i>is</i></b> an accessory to terrorism. And if another entity knowingly represents such a dealer as an agent for easing the latter’s path in society, both in terms of the institutions of law and general public acceptability, then it, too, is an accessory to terrorism. The NRA represents those who manufacture such weapons, manufacturers who know or <i>ought</i> to know the consequences of their use, and it does everything possible to limit any restrictions in the face of mayhem that almost certainly will result from their availability. It then shamelessly beguiles ordinary citizens through propaganda into believing it protects their interests as sporting people. It is not that Americans are more mentally imbalanced than any other nation in the developed world, despite its very high incidence of homicides; it’s that America has more guns than any other developed nation in the world. And one of the principal reasons it does is because of the NRA. The NRA by any standard of logical analysis is essentially a sponsor of death and terrorism. Pure and simple. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The second issue is this. There is a myth that the Second Amendment offers individuals unbridled access to all weapons. It does not, and neither the Founders nor the Framers imagined such a thing. It is only recently that people came to believe that it did, and that is due largely to the success the NRA has had in its propaganda manipulating a large number of gun enthusiasts, building on anti-government sentiment and stoking paranoia about jack-booted, government confiscators swooping down in helicopters, and then essentially holding legislators hostage with both PAC money and its influence over voters, rousing the later into action at the slightest hint of challenge to its interests. No less a conservative than the late Justice Scalia put the lie to the notion that the Second Amendment is so capacious (Columbia <i>v.</i> Heller), and while he did believe the Amendment offers <i>individuals</i> the right to own arms (I disagree with this, but set that aside for our purpose), he also believed that the state has the right to regulate arms, much as one does with getting a license to drive and regulating the kind of equipment that one can use travel the public roads. Would anyone seriously maintain the Second Amendment entitles individuals to possess a nuke, a tank, or a cruise missile? And when the Framers were considering the so-called “prefatory clause” regarding a militia in the Second Amendment, surely they did not mean that such a force that would consist of just anyone, without regard to their capacities or their being in good standing with the law, or that it would entail citizen soldiers with no training. A widespread and consistently reinforced public relations campaign will be necessary to change hearts and minds on this issue in order to disabuse people of the idea that the Second Amendment gives <i>carte blanche</i> to weapons ownership. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Third, and from a practical perspective, the most important issue is this: a Republican Party that has spent years out-foxing Democrats at the local level on redistricting, whilst the latter paid attention to national polls and elections, has secured for itself a disproportionate amount of power in Congress when compared to the number of registered Republicans, nationally. Moreover, its power is inconsistent with the nation’s outlook in the sense that the majority of Americans disagree with very some key elements of the Republican platform on issues ranging from abortion to gun control. Many of the elected Republicans are beholden to the NRA both in terms of the money it gives to their campaigns and the voter influence it wields in their gerrymandered districts. Absent campaign finance reform and fair districting, that relationship is unlikely to change, even with national public pressure, for it is the local district that matters, not what Californians and New Yorkers think about gun control among other <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
issues. Meaningful campaign finance reform <b><i>will not</i></b> occur under a Republican Congress. Period. And fair districting will not occur without the courts intervening in state legislatures’ mischief. Not only are these Republicans beholden to the NRA, they have a corporate constituency’s interests to mind, too, one that may be headed by those of a more “country club” Republican mindset of yore in philosophical orientation, but that is nonetheless forced to be a strange bedfellow with the wooly-minded Evangelicals, gun fetishists, and assorted Trumpsters in order to fulfill its more narrow financial objectives. Most business executives in corporate America are doubtless not interested in supporting the NRA or the GOP’s wackier social agenda, but many do like their lower taxes and fewer regulations. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Which leads me to my final and most important points: if there is to be a material change in the NRA’s influence and truly meaningful gun control legislation, the Republicans cannot be allowed to continue their control of Congress. Indeed, they must be completely marginalized so that it is not simply a minority party in Congress by a small degree, but by a decisive amount and one sufficient for cloture in the Senate and enough Democrats and unaligned members in both chambers to overrule a veto from a Republican President. So, if we liberals want to emasculate the NRA and get meaningful gun reform, then we are going to have to get very serious about winning at the local and state level. That means to some degree we need to recalibrate the way we do politics. First and foremost, we must become better marketers and more adept at playing hardball … and we are not nearly as good as Republicans have been in recent years … and we must relearn Speaker Tip O’Neil’s wise judgment, which is that all politics is local. We must find ways to appeal to local constituencies with local issues, not just the sweeping, single national issues that drive and interest many liberals the most. Those things can be best dealt with once in office; getting there is the trick. Moreover, we must become less divisive in our own ranks, not falling in love but falling in line, like the Republicans, and unlike in some of our recent campaigns where internal strife and overly-pious dogma have contributed to our loses. And like the true believers that dominate the Republican base and the Second Amendment fetishists, <i>we must vote</i>. And until all of that happens and we bounce the Republicans out of Congress for a long period of time, don’t for a moment think things are going to change in any measurable way. They just won’t. I am not discouraging protests, marches, lobbying efforts, writing and social media campaigns, and attempts to legislate sensible gun control in the meantime; as with the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 60s, it is necessary to do these things to build popular support over time. But those efforts should be in addition to the most important measure of all, namely, getting out the vote for good, electable candidates and taking action at the ballot box. And the youthful protesters we see today that are in high school and who are now or will soon be old enough to vote can play a vital role in this by voting and helping to get out the vote in the upcoming midterm election and again in 2020. A decisive Democratic majority in both bodies of Congress is where the rubber ultimately will meet the road. If we want gun control, marginalize the Republicans and, as a result, put an end the insidious power and mayhem of the NRA. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Michael Berumen is a retired business executive and published author on diverse topics including economics, mathematics, and philosophy. He resides with his wife in Colorado. He is the author of the book Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business. He has been writing about and warning against Fascism in America and Trump for several years.</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
####<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-20432319323819504102013-03-15T23:40:00.000-07:002019-01-13T13:31:37.029-08:00Polemic on Politicians and Society: A Skeptics Defense of Liberalism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;">Reprinted from <i>Liberal Resistance</i>, 23 Jan 18</span></div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "source sans pro", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">By Michael E. Berumen</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">I don’t mean this in a personal way. It’s not about a particular politician, though I could name many–––but I simply don’t like politicians as a class, and that is true notwithstanding their political orientation, indeed, even when I agree with many of their positions. There are times I might even put political activists as a class at a close second for contempt. I was once an activist myself, long ago, for what that’s worth. And I confess to occasional bouts of it still when moved by idiocy in the political landscape, such as I see today with the rise of the crypto-Confederacy and fascism. There are of course activists and politicians that I do find likable enough in the particular, that is, when I have more first-hand knowledge of them–––because the fact is, as a hopelessly social being, myself, I like most everyone in the particular. My wife assures me that this is a weakness of mine. Some find it easier to like humanity in the abstract, a detached formulation that even seems a bit insincere or even impossible to me, even somewhat meaningless–––whereas I like people individually, concretely, that is, when I know them.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">I think that in order to be a politician one must possess characteristics that I rather abhor, and first and foremost, just the fact the typical politician presumes to know what’s best for me and seeks to arrange my life and the lives of others, which I resent. Among other things, they assume that the economic goods that I acquire fairly, whether it is by luck or desert, are at their disposal––well, by virtue of their power, they truly are at their disposal––and, further, they believe that they are in a position to tell me what to think, and often enough they are even able to tell me how to behave, that is, lest I run sideways of the law and suffer the consequences.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Then there are there are the constant self-congratulatory declarations of doing well by others–––of selfless service and sacrifice–––usually ostensibly directed as testimony about other politicians, disingenuously, for in actuality it is intended to reflect more upon themselves. More on that in a moment. Also, I am perturbed by the fact that politicians of every persuasion possess a kind of personal grandiosity, a sense of self most likely entirely unjustified–––a belief they are specially endowed or entitled, with a destiny to fulfill some end-state conception of theirs with benefits that will inure to the rest of us.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Then there’s the matter of lying. Now, human beings lie, almost (I say <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">almost</span></em> not quite believing it is even just almost) without exception–––and sophisticated psychological studies show people lie astonishingly often, granted, usually on unimportant things, but often enough on important ones, too. But most human beings are not governing large numbers of other human beings, so some liars are more important than other liars in terms of their impact. Here’s the rub that would set politicians all atwitter in denial: in a true democracy with a population consisting of people with a wide range of interests and capacities, in order to succeed, politicians must be untruthful, either by commission or omission, and if not in a blatant way, then in a vague, slippery sort of way, and usually a bit of both–––for in no other manner could they at once appeal to different constituencies with different and, often enough, opposing interests and still be elected. <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">We are all liars</span></em>, it’s just a fact and there’s no denying it without lying again. But as opposed to most of us, politicians make their livings at lying, and we pay their way. Let me put it another way: one must be something of a scoundrel in order to succeed as a politician.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">An honest ideologue would be no better, though, even if he were elected to office, for an ideologue is by definition unyielding and doctrinaire, and he imagines that the fulfillment of his principles is paramount and above all other concerns, and contrary facts on the ground or opinions of others are very unlikely to alter his view. A dishonest ideologue is even worse, of course. And there’s a good chance he will be, for, as I said, people lie, and in this particular case, with a fanatical ideologue, lies can have big consequences to many, often resulting in authoritarianism. Dishonesty is simply something we must accept in a democracy, that is, if we are to have it, which, as Winston Churchill averred, is the worst possible system <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">except</span></b></em> for all the rest.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">As I suggested before, no one perpetuates the idea of public service and their personal sacrifice, and the sacrifices of their peers–––even their opponents (usually only when dead, though!)–––more than a politician, which is more often than not simply another means of self-justification. It nauseates me when I hear politicians praise one another for their service in obsequy at funerals, as though they suffer great travail out of duty or encounter untoward danger when seeking power over the rest of us. Heroes among them are few and far in between. It is simply self-praise for a predilection for meddlesomeness. I do not mean to say that political achievement is never actuated by good intentions with even noble ends in mind. But I think there is usually more selfishness behind it than <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">noblesse oblige</span></em>, and that in at least equal measure there is a desire to fulfill personal ambition, even glory, and certainly to gain the satisfaction that comes from having power and control over others, not to mention their approbation. A politician by his very nature is something of a narcissist, some being more of one than others. I don’t find such people worthy of admiration, generally, though I confess I do make exceptions. But this isn’t about the exceptions–––it’s about most of them.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">As for patriotism, it is an emotion akin to supporting a favorite sports team. A perfectly human one, mind you, but a feeling rooted in tribalism. It is not altogether dissimilar to what gang members feel about their band of brothers. And the various symbols that accompany it–––flags, songs, and statues and such–––are akin to a gang’s or sports team’s various totems. Love of country is the love of an abstraction, one that is idealized, usually a conception that doesn’t even exist in the real world. This is not to suggest that I am personally devoid of such feelings, as I am human and being human I too have tribal feelings; but I do view them as primitive, and not especially worthy of rational men, something reason should seek to overcome, control, and not feed. Such emotions, these clannish feelings of patriotism–––or in its more energetic manifestations, nationalism and jingoism–––are the source of considerable evil in the world, a principal cause of many, no <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">most </span></em>horrible wars and much suffering.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">With that said, I do separate patriotism–––the love of country and the (not uncommon) feelings of one’s country’s superiority or exceptional nature–––from <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">duty</span></b></em> to country. By that I mean the sense of duty owed to the society that has offered one certain benefits and protections, and also the duty to one’s neighbors and family, or more broadly speaking, the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">duty to one’s countrymen</span></em>. I have a rather Socratic view of this, which is to say, I obey the laws of my country and fulfill the duties assigned to me (within the limits of good conscience and what I deem to be morally right), such as paying taxes, not committing crimes, obeying contract laws, and even defending it when it becomes necessary. Much as Socrates refused exile instead of death when found in violation of Athenian law of corrupting the youth and such–––a society from which he said he gained much and, he believed, had a duty to obey–––I think one acquires a certain set of duties just by living in a society and must adhere to the consequences of its laws. I do see limits to this, and a place for conscientious objection. I do not subscribe to the Socratic view that one owes his very life to the state, though I think one can argue we sometimes owe a great deal. This will obviously vary by the kind of societal arrangements we have and the benefits we derive from it. While I might not have <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">explicitly</span></em> signed-up for or accepted these duties, neither did I explicitly deny the benefits or opportunities bestowed upon me, many or even most of which I took for granted. Therefore, my acceptance of those duties is at least to some degree implied by my having also freely taken advantage of the benefits bestowed upon me. The matter of choice certainly enters into the matter and can be a mitigating factor. We do not have a choice as to where we are born or even in many instances where we sometimes end up living. There are times the institutions of a society are so unjust that they must be resisted at great cost, and thereby other duties are justifiably nullified.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">My political views can be summarized fairly simply. I subscribe to tolerance, not of everything, but of differences that obtain in society that do me no harm, and, therefore, to pluralism; believe that the material goods and assets <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">fairly acquired</span></em> by others belong to them to own and dispose of as they see fit, with some constraints (such as not causing undue suffering by virtue of one’s use of the property); believe in the rule of law, and not the caprice of men (understanding that civil disobedience is sometimes defensible); hold that people ought to have the right to choose their leaders; believe that minorities have rights that need to be protected from oppressive majorities; accept the role of logic and science, which is to say, reason, and as such I eschew both superstition and ignorance. I, therefore, suppose that I am properly characterized as a <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">liberal</span></em>, to resurrect the once venerable appellation that has been sullied in recent decades.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">I do not hew to any overarching system of ends from which all other social principles are derived, which characterizes an ideologue–––that is, beyond the most rudimentary kind of moral principles that can be derived from conjoining two distinct concepts into one, namely, <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">impartiality</span></em> and <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">rationality</span></em>, the former meaning without bias, the latter meant in the psychological sense of rational behavior. The conjoint principle of <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">impartial rationality</span></em> underlies a moral code that can be universal, which is to say, applicable everywhere, by everyone, and at all times. We know, for example, it is irrational for one to choose his own suffering (or death) without another, greater reason (such as to avoid greater pain, as surgery might require, or to protect a loved one), and if we act <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">impartially</span></em>, we extend this basic, <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">rational</span></em> prohibition to others, and without regard to the benefits or disadvantages for one’s own self or others about whom we care. This is a long way of saying that the guiding principle of universal morality is to avoid causing <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">unjustified </span></em>suffering and, what is more, that all other just principles are derived therefrom.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">No one could reason that we ought to promote happiness as a universal requirement, though, or some other conception of the good, for there is no objective standard of reference for such ideas upon which all rational people would agree. However, there is such a standard for suffering and death, and specifically for their avoidance, that is, without an overriding reason. It is a <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">condition</span></em> of rationality. Conceptions of the good–––the things we believe we ought to promote or act upon for society as a whole or for people individually––cannot be similarly universalized as requirements (unlike a rational prohibition, the avoidance of suffering) to apply to everyone in a way that all rational people would agree, for there are no objective standards of reference to validate what one person thinks is good versus another’s conception. Nothing in rationality or reason suggests we should prefer one conception of good over another, but it does require we not seek to suffer (or die) for its own sake.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Democratic political systems are theoretically manifestations of our ends, our desires, which reason can lead us to fulfill by various means–––but ends that are in and of themselves not determined by reason, as David Hume famously showed, but desires arising from passion. Reason does provide us with means to ends, though, and can aid us in avoiding suffering unless justified, a principle we all would extend to others if we act impartially. We can also formulate exceptions to rules dictated by impartial rationality, rules such as do not lie or kill when given specific facts. The justification can be made by using the same formula–––universalizing it impartially such that I, too, or another whom I care about, could as easily be the victim or beneficiary of it, given the same essential facts of the matter. Thus, thereby, one might universalize an exception to a rule against lying to protect an individual from a life-threatening circumstance, e.g., telling the Nazi one is not hiding Jews in the basement–––or formulate that the suffering that will surely attend war will be outweighed by the lives it will save and greater suffering it will prevent. Impartial rationality is the formula by which all political (and economic) rules and acts ought to be judged, indeed, by which all social acts ought to be judged. My ethical and political philosophy can be summed up in two words, namely, <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">impartial rationality</span></em>, and I submit it is the very essence and <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">sine qua non</span></em> of liberalism.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">There are things that trouble me about self-described leftists. Foremost among them is their certainty about how others ought to live their lives. But also one of the left’s hallmark characteristics is the focus on motives or on “good” intentions, and the emphasis on what lies behind an act or prescription, that which it is assumed gives the act its moral meaning and merit. I reject this Kantian outlook, though I accept much else of what Immanuel Kant says about morality, especially in relation to impartiality (his categorical imperative, though flawed as he has devised it, is essentially a formula to achieve impartial universality), and also his defense of democracy and individual liberty. Morality is about <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">what we</span></em> <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">do</span></em>, though, not simply about what we feel or believe, or about our intentions. Sentiment and belief are worthless unless followed by the right act. Would that it were as easy as simply believing a certain way! In this leftists share much with various religious doctrines, most notably Christian doctrines that consider morality to be more about what we believe than about what we actually do.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">And as with Christians of various stripes, some on the left also believe there is something impure about wanting or acquiring property, or to make a profit in the process of exchange, expending labor, investing one’s goods to acquire even more, or even by serendipity. The <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">New Testament</span></em> itself tells us that it is hard for the rich to enter Heaven. The profit motive is seen as being selfish, a character flaw, and one to be eschewed. As if self-proclaimed selflessness and the satisfaction derived thereby were not in and of itself a form of hubris and selfishness. Profit is conceived as something not based on moral desert, and profit-taking is seen as a zero-sum proposition, whereby someone gains, someone loses. The leftist sometimes subscribes more to a kind of theology than empirical economics. This disdain for commerce and profit dates back at least to Plato’s <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">Laws</span></em>. And while it is less important to Christian thought today, especially in Protestant theology, it is manifest throughout early Christian literature and Scripture, and it was profoundly influential in the development of many leftist doctrines.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">So-called capitalists (I am not one–––I believe <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">both</span></em> capitalist <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">acts</span></b></em> and socialist <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">acts </span></b></em>can be justified, and not in a “system” consisting only of one at the exclusion of the other) are wrong to say capitalism is justified because it is more efficient than state-ownership of economic goods or state-controlled pricing––even though an abundance of empirical evidence suggests that this is the case. Efficiency is <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">not</span></b></em> a moral criterion. Taken to an extreme, a strictly utilitarian argument could leave a great many people impoverished or enslaved in order to maximize average prosperity. This is the great flaw with libertarian economic arguments favoring profit above all else in commerce, such as some of the arguments made by economist Milton Friedman. Private property and its disposition–––how we use it, can be justified on moral grounds, when it is property that is <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">fairly acquired</span></b></em> (not mystically instantiated by labor, a la Locke, Marx, and Rand––which would bestow property on both oxen and horses), but also only when its use does not cause others to suffer, for morality always trumps efficiency.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">The political right bases much of its dogma on moral desert. Rightists often ignore the singular advantage of good fortune, e.g., being born in a particular place and time, genetic advantages, and having particular experiences such as accidents of coming in contact with the right people at the right time, including a particular kind of upbringing. They ignore <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">luck</span></em>, in other words. They imagine the things they acquire result entirely from their own effort–––a kind of magical thinking. The corollary is that the privations of others are in some manner their own fault–––and often enough believed to result from slothfulness or shiftlessness, or in some cases because god wills it to be so. They ignore the advantages bestowed upon them that they had nothing to do with, ones others did not have through no fault or moral deficiency of their own. Consequently, they often are more loath to share their gains, for example, through taxation, notwithstanding the fact that simple luck and the benefits of society (protection of the law) might have made possible much of what they have.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">People on both the right and the left make a fetish out of democracy, but neither side really cares much for it when they don’t like the result. Democracy is a very messy kind of business––and, let’s face it, people are often not very smart and they sometimes even operate against their own interests, or at least what others (including me) believe to be in their interest–––<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">and that’s part of the point</span></em>. Who gets to decide this? And why should someone else be in charge of deciding my interests or, similarly, why should I be in charge of deciding another’s? I am not fond of stupid people coming together at the ballot box to tell me how to live. On the other hand, there’s little evidence to suggest that smart people are any better, and, plenty of evidence to suggest they can be equally or even more dangerous when given unencumbered power. There is, unfortunately, no good alternative to democracy, certainly not authoritarianism or anarchy, though I’d take my chances with the latter over the former. Over time, democracy tends to work out, but not always––and the tyranny of the majority always remains problematic, which is why a system of law and representative procedure are necessary to protect individual rights from mob rule or from the opinion of the moment–––laws made by elected representatives who, though largely dishonest and self-serving themselves, are still much more likely through reflection and compromise to come up with something more sensible than what we’d get with a direct democracy.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Of course, leftists often prattle on about “the people”–––holding this disembodied abstraction as their special and abiding interest. They make a fetish of the poor too, and yet, studies show they do little themselves out of their own pocket for the poor. The reality is that much of what “the people” really desire is eschewed by the left, that is, their superstitions, tastes, values, and habits. The left has contempt for their unwashed ways–––ways they would hope to change to suit their conception of how “the people” ought to be, as opposed to how they <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">really </span></em>are. So the left comforts itself, deludes itself, really, with a belief that “the people” are just being misled and are ignorant of the true facts, and if they only knew them, they’d come running to their righteous cause. The unlettered and uncultured ways of the underclass are seen as manifestations of their victimization in the class struggle. Of course, this is mostly rubbish, for the rabble genuinely prefers its rabbling ways, and even think their would-be do-gooders on the left consists of wild-eyed, impractical kooks. In reality, “the people” have disdain in equal measure for their would-be protectors as the latter truly have for them; but they are not in denial about it. This is not to say that I am a fan of the mores of the unwashed masses. I am not a devotee to some wooly-minded abstraction about “the people” or “the working man,” nor do I believe in some sort of special virtue of the poor. Such nonsense has helped give rise to Trumpism, a modern form and American species of fascism, in our own time, and in no small measure facilitated by the pandering of the media. I reject the idea on empirical grounds that one economic class is inherently more virtuous than another, or even that virtue accompanies literacy and education, for it plainly doesn’t. The rise of Hitler, after all, occurred in arguably the most literate society on earth in the early 1930s.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">The political right is of course fascinated by and loves authority, despite its occasional paeans to individual liberty. In reality, liberty is the furthest thing from the typical rightists’ mind, especially as it pertains to the liberty of others. Liberty for themselves, maybe, though the typical rightist is quite enamored of structure and hierarchy. They require strong father figures to tell themselves and especially others how to behave, to provide rules of conduct for society, and of course, to punish the wicked who violate them. They like order, regularity, predictability–––and they generally deplore non-conformity. They also share with the left a disdain for people with whom they disagree, and at their most ideological, they are every bit as intolerant. People on the ideological left, of course, imagine they are more tolerant, but they often are not, and left to their own devices many would just as soon have people with whom they disagree ostracized or put in a re-education camp.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">The right seems to have a special love of symbolism and abstractions such as flag and country, the latter being more idealized than anything, and often enough based on some halcyon time from the past that never really existed as they imagine it did. They seldom love their countrymen as they really are; rather, they love those who think as they do and more often than not they despise the rest. So the love of country is quite conditional.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">The right also is especially apt to see punishment, retribution, as the proper solution to get others to obey and to obtain justice, whereas the left is more inclined to rehabilitation and second chances. It is perhaps not unexpected therefore that the right prefers strongmen as leaders, whereas the left prefers nurturers. Both are susceptible to cults of personality. In fact, the populations constituting the greatest cults were under leftist rule in the 20</span><sup style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">th</span></sup><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;"> century, notably the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. People on the right and left are not nearly as different from one another as they’d like to believe in terms of their vulnerabilities and naiveté. It is not surprising that many on the right tend to be religious and seek the ultimate father figure in their belief in a supreme being who brings order to the universe. People on the left often settle for some cosmic notion of justice––natural law or a dialectical progressivism––social forces that inexorably lead to the left’s idealized version of the just society–––but they also can put great store in charismatic leaders who are seen to be more “caring” for people, more “mothering” nurturers as opposed to the stern father figures that the right so often prefers.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Finally, lest someone mistake my point of view, I believe so-called moderation can be as much a fetish as the various shibboleths of the right and left, and that moderation it is more a matter of temperament or technique than a well-formulated position. At its worst it can be a cowardly outlook, compromising when there should be no compromise. At its best, it can be accepting a compromise for a greater good as a matter of tactical necessity. There can be no truly “moderate” political view, for what would that be–––something in between true and false or right and wrong? An Aristotelian mean of sorts? What I am arguing for, here, is a liberal outlook, properly understood, and I am arguing against tribalism, silliness, and pretense. I am not promoting cynicism, but I am promoting skepticism. I am arguing against both leftist and rightest comprehensive and invariant systems from which all principles are held to flow, and instead, arguing that social principles should flow from logic and evidence, and that before formulating a position, that we should consider how the essential properties of the facts at hand bear on other, similar instances, and ask ourselves if such a position can be willed <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">impartially</span></em> to apply to all without regard to how we ourselves might benefit or lose in the same circumstances. I am arguing for making exceptions to principles based on universalizable and impartial prescriptions. Most of all, I am arguing for the conjoint principle of <em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";">impartial rationality</span></em>–––and for healthy skepticism about those who presume to arrange our lives through political activity. Such people are necessary to a well-ordered and just society–––and they will be with us as long as there are more than a handful of people–––but these people and their ideas always must be put into proper perspective and viewed through a skeptical lens.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;">Michael Berumen is a retired business executive and published author on diverse topics including economics, mathematics, and philosophy. He resides with his wife in Colorado. He is the author of the book Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business. He has been writing about and warning against Fascism in America and Trump for several years.</span></em><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-44695562827348526352013-03-15T23:39:00.000-07:002019-01-13T13:34:13.524-08:00Not Your Grandfather’s Republican Party: Takeover by the crypto-Confederacy and Trumpism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 25px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
By Michael E. Berumen<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(Originally published in Liberal Resistance Nov 8, 2017)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">T</span>he American Civil War was finalized in a military sense, but it was never entirely settled politically or culturally. Its residual embers have remained a part of our national makeup for over 150 years, and efforts to rekindle and stoke the fire by various means persist, and today that seems particularly evident, perhaps more so than at any other time since the late Sixties with the ascendancy of the American Independent Party and George Wallace on the national scene. There were, of course, several divisive issues in the Sixties, and the Vietnam War and the military draft were not least among them. Race, however, was front-and-center in the national consciousness in the midst of marches for justice, slaying of civil rights workers, the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., unrest and discord in major urban areas, increased economic dislocation in the white working class, and the rise of the Black Power movement among African Americans.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In time, all of this seemed to die down to occasional rumblings, and by the end of the Reagan years in the 1980s, race seemed to be less of a strategic political issue at the forefront of our national consciousness, and more of an ongoing and tactical project. But those who were comfortable in their jobs, and who had their houses and substantial 401(k)s, who found amusement in the mundane inanities of Cheers and Seinfeld, and who were fueled by Starbuck’s on their way to work … along with academics, literati, and media … did not always pay heed to what was going on within the lower economic strata among whites and blacks, especially as the economy converted from its manufacturing basis to financial and service industries; as our once vibrant urban areas deteriorated; while the drug problem became increasingly widespread; as African Americans were jailed and convicted at disproportionate levels; and the fact that just old-fashioned race bigotry never lost ground in large swaths of America, especially among the uneducated, though by no means exclusively so.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Add to all of this several other factors. Many old-time values and mores were being replaced by discomfiting things such as women having increased opportunities and independence outside of the home; a loss of the centrality of maleness; a decline in religion’s significance in people’s lives, and even disparagement by educated elites, denigrations manifest in media and even in popular “yuppified” entertainment; people of different ethnicities or national origins, invariably of darker pigmentation, becoming more prominent in American life and worse, perceived as having unmerited advantages; and an apparent decline in America’s importance and role in the world, a loss of the power that was inherent in simply being an American.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And thus we have the fuel necessary to be enlivened by the erstwhile dormant embers that, while not ever entirely extinguished, were relatively quiescent and hidden from view in recent decades. The catalyst event for a new conflagration was the rise of Trump and Trumpism, which elsewhere I have argued is Fascism recast to suit American sensibilities, but with all of its essential historical and philosophical features. The thing that enables it, however, is something that has been percolating for a very long time … indeed, since 1865 … and that is a kind of crypto-Confederacy that extends beyond the borders of the eleven original Confederate States of America. While some geographic similarities do remain, it is much more widespread, and as much as anything, it is a state of mind that transcends physical boundaries. And as with the Confederacy of old, its outlook relates to race, culture, and exclusivity. More specifically, it holds that the white race is entitled to suzerainty over all other races; it fosters cultural values that support male power, religious hegemony, and mythologized nationalistic symbols and codes of both honor and fealty; and it manifests the essential features of nativism, fear of the “other” and a desire to be isolated or at least immunized from exogenous influences. These were the very same ideas promoted by the secessionists of 1861. Today, however, rather than secede, the idea is even more aggressive in a sense, and that is to take total control. And while I do not think it will be successful in the long run, it has already proven to be at once highly disruptive and corrosive.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The vehicle for all of this, curiously, has been the modern Republican Party, the erstwhile party of the great liberator, Abraham Lincoln. But it is not your grandfather’s GOP. Far from it. Indeed, today, it has much more in common with the Southern Democrats of old than it does with the early Republicans, which was the progressive “liberal” party of its time. The transformation was gradual. Of course, the liberal point of view in the 19th century in both America and Britain was in support of free-trade and opposed to protectionism and tariffs … the latter of which were central to the doctrines of conservatives and populists in both countries (interestingly, many contemporary Republicans have turned their backs on those notions). As a consequence, it is not surprising that the Republican Party also became the more commercially-oriented party. On social issues, and particularly on matters of race, it was more open, pragmatic, and progressive compared to the Democrats until much later. The Republican Party was the party of abolitionism, of course, so it is not surprising that many African Americans who were able to vote aligned with Republicans until well into the next century. The Great Depression resulted in some significant changes in the Democratic Party as FDR cobbled together disparate ethnic and economic groups with a shared interest in dealing with economic privation in the New Deal era. But perhaps the most significant shift occurred in the 1960s after the Civil and Voting Rights Acts. This was the beginning of the end of the dominance of the Democrats in the southern states. Racial attitudes had not changed much in the South … and lynchings, church bombings, and Ku Klux Klan rallies with burning crosses were by no means a thing of the past,</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In 1964 and 1965, shortly after President Kennedy’s assassination and with unparalleled legislative prowess, President Lyndon Johnson wielded sufficient power to bend the Congress to his Texas-sized will. Probably no president before or since had as much legislative clout as did LBJ during that period. According to Bill Moyers, “When he signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. ‘I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come,’ he said.” That was prophetic, for indeed it was true and remains true today. It did not happen overnight, but it did happen in a relatively short period of time.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Enter Richard Nixon in the late 1960s, who effectively used code phrases such as “law and order” and the “silent majority” to arouse white anxieties during a time of considerable social unrest, which brought over an increasing number of working-class whites in both southern and northern states, if not in actual party registration, at least in terms of voting practices, including leaders and members of labor unions who had historically been part of the Democratic Party. Many evangelical Christians still remained in the Democratic Party and helped a Southern Baptist from Georgia, Jimmy Carter, get elected in the mid-Seventies; but they soon would become solidly wed to the GOP with Ronald Reagan (a once divorced, non-church going, Hollywood actor!) who effectively used both Nixonian memes and vocabulary and Christian organizations, such as Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, in order to appeal to so-called "values voters." This was the final straw and solidified the Republican grip on the southern states, a grip that has not changed since. GOP strategists were well aware that changing demographics represented a long-term problem for them with the browning of America; younger, more educated voters, and women who tended to vote more along liberal lines; and along with a concomitant decline in the influence of party bosses and party loyalty more generally. To forestall this trend, the GOP operatives worked diligently to gain control at both local and state levels, thereby building a strong backbench for national politics, whilst Democrats were more focused on national issues, special interests, and identity politics. In so doing, Republicans were successfully able to rejigger voting districts to favor mostly white strongholds, all while simultaneously making voter registration as difficult as possible for people of color. They have not abandoned that project.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is another aspect to the GOP that must be addressed. I have already mentioned that it is not a coincidence that commercial interests would become aligned with the Republican Party early in its formation, for free trade, progress, and industrialism … all attributes of modernity … were also part and parcel to the progressive outlook of the time. Indeed, the Democratic Party was far more oriented towards populism, agrarian concerns, and cultural conservatism. Prior to World War II, the GOP had little interest in foreign adventurism or the perennial military squabbles of the Old World. Indeed, in the aftermath of World War I, a decidedly isolationist outlook established a foothold in both parties, but especially in the GOP under the likes of leaders such as Senator Robert Taft, Sr. Only after World War II and during the Cold War did the GOP become the party most identified with a robust defense. The 1950s and 1960s represented the heyday of the defense and aerospace industry as an economic sector, and this was a time when there was a considerable confluence of industrial and military interests, a phenomenon that a concerned President Eisenhower presciently presaged. The commercially-oriented Republicans are a more educated class as a whole, and, as a consequence, generally more socially liberal than those who are primarily motivated by traditional values. The former’s interests are more parochially self-serving, and they wink and nod at their less educated confreres, whose values they do not share, whilst pandering just enough to retain the latter’s support on issues that more directly related to their commercial interests. I should add, some former cold-warriors and so-called neo-conservative Democrats with strong military interests would eventually join the Republican side, albeit they tend also to be more aligned with the more liberal social views of the educated commercial class of Republicans and the Democratic Party than the values voters.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, today, the GOP consists of some strange bedfellows … those whose principal goal is to influence regulatory matters and to keep taxes low in order to maximize both personal and business returns … the people we might have called country club or chamber-of-commerce Republicans in a prior era, and people whose social views tend to be more moderate to liberal; a much smaller subdivision of the former group, namely, the so-called libertarians, who want the foregoing along with minimal government intrusion in all of its forms, including the military and its worldwide footprint; and what is the largest segment, today, the values-oriented Republican, whose motivations are largely cultural, and, to no small degree, more rooted in disaffection and disillusionment. While the first group is not the largest segment, it has historically been the most powerful one in the party, and perhaps not surprisingly because, after all, they have had the money. Moreover, a large part of the aspirational middle-class, the cloth coat Republican of yore, those who wanted to become affluent, and could therefore identify with many of its principles in relation to taxes and business, could not identify with some of the cultural issues typified in the southern states, and found itself increasingly alienated from party politics, thereby becoming unaligned with either party. The power structure also began to change and fragment with so-called political finance reform, where large collections of individuals were permitted to pool their money into powerful groups aligned on issues and candidates, often centered on cultural matters, and also with the advent of the internet and social media, where traditional media … adhering to at least some journalistic, editorial standards … were no longer monopolizing the dissemination of information, and where large audiences could be targeted and accessed at a very low cost.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Republican Party today is not the Republican Party of Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt; indeed, it could not be further removed. It is not even the party of Eisenhower, Nixon, or Reagan, all of whom would be appalled at the white-trash vulgarianism that has taken hold of it. It is dominated by the crypto-Confederacy, a consequence of civil rights legislation that alienated Southern Democrats, and a consequence of some of the things both Nixon and Reagan fostered. Today, the party is led by a neo-Fascist, Donald Trump, a would-be authoritarian who, like any good Fascist, sees truth as relative, permeable, and flexible, and who sees his and the state’s interests as inseparable, and whose allies on the so-called alternative right have burrowed their way into the halls of power at every level. It would be convenient to ascribe his rise to an electoral accident, FBI Director Comey’s Clinton investigation, and the Russians, but the groundwork laid by a growing crypto-Confederacy made someone like him increasingly likely. One of the positives might be his utter bumptiousness, for a smoother operator could be even more dangerous. But by the same token, someone who is clearly mentally disturbed has the nuclear codes, which is unsettling notwithstanding his ineptitude in carrying out certain things. Several of the cultural qualities of crypto-Confederates (increasingly less crypto as I write, given that the President’s Chief of Staff, John Kelly, is publicly claiming that the Civil War could have been prevented through “compromise” and the treasonous General Robert E. Lee is “honorable”) are not far removed from several aspects of Fascistic doctrines, and it is therefore not surprising that the latter … typified by the likes of its modern theorist and ideological revanchist, Steve Bannon, Trump’s political Rasputin … was easily able to co-opt the former.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Meantime, a cowardly crew of sycophants and sinecurists who once denounced Trump and Trumpism clings to power in the Congress as part of the Republican majority. While whispering disapproval when it suits them, they do nothing to curtail the cancer that is Trumpism lest it interfere with their own popularity in their gerrymandered districts, or so that it does not interfere with or derail their cynical preference of getting some of their pet projects signed into law, notwithstanding this plague that has poisoned our political culture and imperiled the country’s moral authority, indeed, jeopardized the integrity of the rule of law and our most sacred institutions. Spinelessness of this sort has not been seen in the United States Congress since the late 1850s, I am not able to predict what is going to happen to the Republican Party. I can only say what I hope will happen, and that is that the silver lining to this otherwise dark cloud of Trumpism will be the destruction of the Republican Party as we know it. Of course, along with it, I hope the edifice upon which Trumpism is built, the crypto-Confederacy, and Trumpism itself, are diminished and then stamped out permanently. Obviously, there are some within the party who are discomfited by Trumpism, and a good many independents who are unaligned but who hew to the center or center-right and who find Trumpism unacceptable. While I am a lifelong, liberal Democrat, I also see the necessity of a loyal opposition party that is at once vibrant and strong. It is my hope that out of the ashes, should our institutions weather this storm, that a new and responsible center-right party will arise, one that is more like the Republican Party we knew, the party of Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower … a party that believed in the virtues of free markets, but that did not elevate that belief into an inflexible religious doctrine; a party that sought to mitigate the privations of the least among us and promoted opportunity for everyone; a party that believes in justice, the rule of law, and the right of everyone to be treated equally under the law.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Michael Berumen is a retired business executive and published author on diverse topics including economics, mathematics, and philosophy. He resides with his wife in Colorado.</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-37413896054505029472013-03-15T23:38:00.000-07:002019-01-13T15:19:54.647-08:00America's First Fascist President<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Note: republished in <i>LiberalResistance</i> on 10-24-16<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">I</span>t has been nearly two years, now, since I first went on record and predicted Donald Trump would become a major political force and the eventual nominee of the Republican Party, and, perhaps, even president. And so it has come to pass. Many of my friends at the time thought I had lost my mental bearings.<i> </i>I have not in the meantime changed my mind about either Trump or Trumpism. I was personally less than enthusiastic about the alternatives, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, though I much preferred either of them over Trump. As much as I worry about Donald Trump in the White House, today, I am nearly as worried about an ominous undercurrent in the US that is at once large and powerful, and one that will likely remain with us for the foreseeable future. It is a clear and present danger to the nation and, hence, it represents a danger to the world. It is nothing less than a <i>Fascistic</i> movement in the country and, at least for the time being, the leader of the movement occupies the most powerful position in the United States. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When I was young, it was a commonplace on the political left to brand our rightist opponents as <i>Fascists</i>. More often than not, it was used as a facile pejorative, and without much real thought to the lexical or historical meaning of the word. We knew it was bad, representing things that we eschewed, and to identify the opposing right with brutal authoritarian regimes seemed appropriate enough to us, and why not the worst kind. What, after all, could be worse than Nazis, that is, if one wanted to brand something as evil! The appellation was often overused and used inaccurately. It thereby lost much of its significance over time, so today, when it is used appropriately, it is sometimes characterized as hackneyed. In more recent years, it has not been uncommon even to hear rightists use the term to describe leftist thought or activists. Bill O'Reilly, the erstwhile loudmouthed, bully-broadcaster on Fox News, was guilty of this kind of abuse ... to cite just one recent example, he called David Silverman, the leader of an American atheist group, as being <i>Fascistic</i> for his steadfast positions against organized religion and his support of separation between church and state.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have long said Trump was a <i>Fascist</i>, and his core followers are either Fascists or enablers of <i>Fascism</i>, which to my mind is a distinction without an important difference. Others reject this, describing him as a mere populist or garden-variety authoritarian, because, after all, the unlettered and historically ignorant Trump would not even be able to define <i>Fascism</i>. Therefore, how could he be one? And his followers, they would have us believe, are just gullible innocents oppressed by their circumstances and victimized, effectively beguiled by a demagogue, and held hostage by his hateful rhetoric. I believe this is complete nonsense<i>. </i>I should like to posit that Trumpism is indeed closely linked to the ideas of historical <i>Fascism</i>; that Trump himself has all of the essential qualities of a <i>Fascist</i> leader; and what is more, that his partisans, wittingly or unwittingly, are a part of a <i>Fascistic</i> movement. It does not matter that they do not know the etymology or the history of <i>Fascism, </i>or that they have not read about and are unable to articulate the theoretical underpinnings of historical <i>Fascism.</i> They, in fact, support many of its main ideas, and for all practical purposes, they are, therefore, themselves, <i>Fascists</i>. Much like the millions of Germans who denied that they were Nazis after the war because they were not card-carrying members of the Party, we can no longer allow this faux and obfuscating distinction (i.e., I support Trump and Trumpism, however, I am not a <i>Fascist</i>) to be swept under the rug and ignored.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Contrary to a now common description, Trumpism is not simply a form of populism, although it shares some of its characteristics. Some liberals, especially in the political, academic, and pundit classes, are seriously guilty of whitewashing and, thereby, diminishing Trump and Trumpism's insidious character by referring to it as populism, and then by qualifying it further by speaking of the several grievances of its largely white, uneducated constituency. It enables them to evince sympathy for the perceived legitimate complaints and anger of the (supposed) underclass, thereby avoiding any accusations of elitism, while remaining critical of Trump himself, essentially offering excuses for the reprehensible behavior ... hate, violent overtones, jingoism, racism, and misogyny ... of his supporters. Always looking for sociological explanations for their fellow man's depravity, liberals' abiding sense of fairness and caring for the downtrodden (who themselves often enough could care less about the liberals or their views) can sometimes obscure their perceptions of the reality of venal, evil forces. This was true in the 1930s, and it is just as true now. Rational men on both the right and the left at the time completely misunderstood what Hitler understood well, namely, that much of politics is not a rational calculation and there is a dark underside of human nature that can be exploited, especially when one can dehumanize someone seen as responsible for one's real or imagined privations. We see some of this misunderstanding today. One consequence of this kind of faith in rationalism is a tolerance of the intolerable by distancing his supporters from Trump, himself, and from Trumpism<i>, </i>I think this is a mistake, and, at least sometimes, even disingenuous and cynical, as though they represent potential voters for the right side, our side, and thus we cannot afford to alienate them<i>. </i></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div>
<i></i><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><i>I wish to call them out at every turn, </i>for the fact is that Trump's followers' views <i>are</i> deplorable, much as his opponent Hillary Clinton said, and Trump is the catalyst and lens for refracting their vile beliefs.<i> </i>Trumpism would not be possible without them. He is the catalyzing agent. It matters not that some may even be our friends or relations. I make an exception only for the mentally incompetent. Liberals and conservatives both need to call a spade a shovel and stop excusing the inexcusable. </i></div>
<i> </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Populism has taken various forms on the political right and left in different times and in different parts of the globe. It has a long history, at least dating back to Pericles in Athens and Julius Caesar in Rome<i>, </i>Broadly speaking, in modern times, populism is a political movement that centers on economic grievances, primarily, though not exclusively, by workers, the less affluent merchant class, and small farmers, against the economic, social, and intellectual elites who are perceived as the causes of their privations. Andrew Jackson might well be the best example of an early populist leader in the US, and to date, the only truly populist president. The Populist Party of the 1890s consisted of farmers and some labor unions that denounced a system, whereby, in the words of David M. Kennedy and Lizabeth Cohen’s <i>American Pageant</i> (2005), “the fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few." One of the great populist leaders of this era and into the early 20th century was Williams Jennings Bryan, a charismatic, religious orator, and sometimes presidential candidate, who railed against capitalist elites, as exemplified by his famous "Cross of Gold" speech. Huey P. Long, Sr., "The Kingfish," a governor and senator from Louisiana, led a populist movement in the Great Depression, and, had he not been killed in 1935, he might well have become president. Populism regained currency, again, in the 1950s. The historian Richard Hofstadter and sociologist Daniel Bell compared the anti-elitism and populism of the late 19th century with that of Joseph McCarthy's grievances against communism and American power elites<i>, </i>In the late sixties and early seventies, George Wallace led a third-party, populist movement that centered on racial segregation<i>. </i>And the modern Tea Party has many elements of populism with its focus on white, male grievances with both racial and anti-immigrant overtones.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bernie Sanders' candidacy also capitalized on some populist sentiments against the elites, with much emphasis on the real and imagined burdens of white youth and the various real and imagined malefactions of the wealthy, and it is therefore not altogether surprising, after his primary loss, that there has been a small number of converts to Trumpism, and there are some sentiments or grievances that are similar ... or if not out-and-out converts, there are people who rationalize (mistakenly, I believe) that Trump could be no worse than the alternative. This is a delusion, and a false sense of principle, when it is actually the opposite of principle, for he is much worse. Politics is a practical affair, and principle can get in the way of principle, which is to say, <i>ceteris paribus</i>, when the ideal has little or no chance of succeeding, the next best thing, or the least worse thing ought to prevail. Al Gore lost the presidency resulting in a war that still has not ended, among other things, due in part to a kind of ideological narcissism on the part of those voting for Ralph Nader in Florida. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To no small degree, the Tea Party movement was a precursor of Trumpism, and it cannot be denied that <i>Fascism</i> and Trumpism have characteristics of populism, and particularly in the sense that people are rallied against others who are seen as the root cause of their various misfortunes, whether the power elites in government, corporations, or "the other" represented by other nations or ethnic groups<i>. </i>But there are also some significant differences between populism and Trumpism. None of the aforementioned populist movements were truly <i>fascistic </i>in nature, whereas, Trumpism most certainly is. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I hasten to state that <i>Fascism</i> is not a systematic doctrine. It is difficult to characterize, and there is considerable debate to this day as to what constitutes true ideological <i>Fascism</i>. It is not an internally consistent doctrine built on a few principles such as one might find in the several socialist or free market doctrines, or in more traditional forms of authoritarian or totalitarian systems In many ways, it is quite incoherent as an ideology, and it consists of an admixture of ideas sometimes even in opposition to one another. At its root are the power of the state and the individual leader, and the identification of the former with the later. It is best, I think, to look at some general characteristics that its several strands possess, but as much as anything, also to consider the actual behaviors of its leaders and followers from a historical perspective.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Fascism</i> has many fathers in terms of its origins and evolution; but in terms of what I'll call European "movement<i> Fascism"</i>, a phenomenon that reached its apotheosis with Hitler and Mussolini, it is principally rooted in <i>fin de siècle</i> Italian, German, and French political thought, and as an offshoot of various Italian and German social movements, but particularly in Italian syndicalism and pan-German nationalism<i>, </i>Among the most influential thinkers were Georges Sorel, Enrico Corradini, Georg von Schönerer, Wilhelm Riehl, Oswald Spengler, and Filippo Tommaso Marinetti. There are others, but most influential of all, that is, prior to Adolf Hitler––was Benito Mussolini, himself, who reduced and catalyzed the views of various thinkers into a well-organized political movement<i>, </i>Hitler, of course, took it to another level, and, in the process, he nearly led the world into the abyss.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is a myth that Trump resembles Mussolini as a person. It is often repeated, but said by people who obviously know next to nothing of Mussolini beyond the swaggering character that they see in old newsreels<i>, </i>Perhaps in his exaggerated attempts at <i>machismo</i> this is true, but it really ends there<i>, </i>Mussolini was a learned and well-rounded man, he had an advanced degree and wrote learned papers, including one on Machiavelli's <i>Prince. </i>He spoke several languages ... and he was a gifted orator with cogent syntax, the latter being a great distinction from Trump, who has the vocabulary of a middling grammar school student<i>, </i> In contrast, Adolf Hitler's learning was eclectic<i>, </i>Aside from being a brilliant orator and dramatist, perhaps only equaled by Winston Churchill in recent times, Hitler was naturally bright and retentive. He also was a gifted street psychologist, a master of branding, use of media, and marketing, much as Trump appears to be. Also like Trump, he was intellectually lazy and uninterested in systematic learning or scholarship. His venue was the coffee house and beer hall, not the library, much as Trump’s is television and social media. While both possess remarkable powers of intuition, especially into the darker sides of human nature, it is patently clear that Hitler was the brighter of the two, as measured by the logical construction of ideas and retention of information. What is more, unlike Trump, Hitler was exceptionally disciplined in managing his public persona, in control of his political machinations ... exposing himself only very carefully ... and very rigorous in conducting his personal relations<i>. </i>Trump is much more impulsive and reckless. The personality comparisons are not what is important about Trump ... for there are not many, really, and they are at best quite superficial. With that said, to therefore suggest that he could not be a Fascist because he is unlike Mussolini or Hitler, is specious. Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh were both communists, too, and while as is the case with most of us, they had some things in common, they were fundamentally different as people. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what is <i>Fascism</i>? First of all, let's nip one common misunderstanding in the bud<i>, </i>It is does not fit in the traditional categories of right and left, which is not the way the self-styled intellectuals representing either ideological extreme would like to have it, namely, that <i>Fascism</i> represents the ideology of the other side. The fact that this is even possible by both sides of the political spectrum partly explains why it can appeal to many.<i> </i>It is nearly always presented by academics as a species of far right-wing politics ... but that is overly simplistic ... it is much more complicated than that. It is more comforting for the typical intellectual or academic to put it that way since he is more often than not of a liberal mindset. No less than an authority than Hitler himself thought Nazism, a species of <i>Fascism</i>, transcended left and right, borrowed from both, and was what he called "syncretic,” In the broadest terms, here are ten characteristics one will find in the three previously successful, large-scale fascistic movements in Europe. Taken individually each attribute may be found in other kinds of movements. But taken as a whole, in combination, I believe they typify <i>Fascism</i>.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. <i>Fascism</i> is a form of hyper-nationalism that capitalizes on two principal things ... one, strong patriotic feelings, often founded on a mythical past that never occurred, and two, the vilification of groups seen as sullying the nation and detrimental to the national interest, often represented by an ethnic or religious group, modernism, cosmopolitan elites, and outsiders more generally. ["Make America Great AGAIN."] [I am putting America first.] ["I think the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."] (...just to name three of many--but more to follow illustrating the same point.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. While there certainly are elements of anti-elitist populism, <i>Fascism</i> also seeks to co-opt people in power, for power is its ultimate objective, and because it is more than willing to use utilitarian means to attain its ends, it will curry favor with economic, political, and intellectual elites wherever and whenever it can to secure it. [Simply look at GOP leaders and moneyed donors, many who are rational and well educated people, who previously denounced Trump, then seek to curry favor with him when he's in a position of power, and the latter’s willingness to use all the tools at his disposal of the elites that his followers decry, e.g., global interests, the media.]</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. <i>Fascism</i> freely borrows from both socialist and capitalist doctrines ... for power is its goal ... and there is not a systematic economic doctrine other than that which is seen as necessary to attain power and to benefit the state, co-opting whatever economic power or centers of influence are necessary to attain those ends, whether through markets, corporate interests, or popular measures with the masses ... so it is perhaps no coincidence that Mussolini was once a socialist involved in the labor movement (which he would destroy), and that Nazism had a vibrant socialist wing in its earlier years ... one eventually quashed (the Night of the Long Knives) by the mid-thirties and replaced by a kind of quasi-capitalism, an economic system best described as state corporatism or crony capitalism. ["Well, the first thing you do is don't let the jobs leave. The companies are leaving. I could name, I mean, there are thousands of them. They're leaving, and they're leaving in bigger numbers than ever. And what you do is you say, fine, you want to go to Mexico or some other country, good luck. We wish you a lot of luck. But if you think you're going to make your air conditioners or your cars or your cookies or whatever you make and bring them into our country without a tax, you're wrong."] [From Trump's chief economic adviser, Steve Moore: "Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy. I’m not even a big believer in democracy."]</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4. Conspiratorial and exclusionary thinking about groups and forces aligned against the movement is part and parcel to all <i>fascistic</i> movements, and plays a central role in the rallying cries of its leaders, whether the bogeyman is international Jewry, a particular ethnic group, the bourgeoisie, large corporate interests, liberal elites, Bolsheviks, or the media. [On Mexican immigrants: "They're bringing drugs,' crime and are 'rapists'."]["I’ve been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage. I'm building a wall, OK? I'm building a wall.] [I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people (ed: that is, Arabs) were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering."] ["Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population."] ["On The Wall Street Journal: 'They better be careful or I will unleash big time on them."]["We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated."]</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
5. When out of power, <i>fascistic</i> movements always declaim against the legitimacy of those in power as usurpers who, through their machinations, rig outcomes and are not the true representatives of the people or the nation. Trump declared before the election that a potential loss could only result from voter fraud and media rigging. We now know the fraud was committed by his allies, the Russians, and we should not be surprised to discover Trump and his associates were complicit in their machinations. Hints at violence, if outcomes are not as expected (meaning a defeat), are not uncommon<i>, </i>and he suggested as much.<i> </i>["I think you'd have riots. I think you'd have riots. I'm representing many, many millions of people. In many cases first-time voters ... If you disenfranchise those people? And you say, well, I'm sorry, you're 100 votes short, even though the next one is 500 votes short? I think you'd have problems like you've never seen before. I wouldn't lead it, but I think bad things will happen".]["Polls close, but can you believe I lost large numbers of women voters based on made up events THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Media rigging election!"] ["Election is being rigged by the media, in a coordinated effort with the Clinton campaign, by putting stories that never happened into the news!"]</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
6<i>, </i>Every successful <i>fascistic</i> movement has been led by a charismatic and often bombastic demagogue who is seen as and who claims to be the embodiment of the nation, the vessel of the national will, and as the exceptional person--one without whom the nation cannot prosper or survive. The state and its leaders effectively become one<i>, </i>["I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created."] [After delineating the ills of the nation: "I am your voice. I alone can fix it."]</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
7. <i>Fascistic </i>movements view violence as a just means of achieving its ends, whether outside of or through the state, and law and order are common code words. Calls for violence or hints of violent recourse against opponents are common. There is often an exaggerated, hyper-masculinity on parade, with the glorification of toughness and strength and power. There is a display of an authoritarian bearing, and the leader’s followers are admirers of it. ["When somebody challenges you, fight back. Be brutal, be tough."] ["When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water."] ["If she gets to pick her judges – nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people. Maybe there is. I don’t know."] ["Why can’t we use nuclear weapons."] ["You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard. I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected governor."]</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
8. Despite the popular appeals to "law and order," a trope of authoritarianism more generally, the <i>fascistic</i> conception of law lies outside of any legislative or judicial proceedings or the kinds of protections or due process enshrined by constitutional authority. Often the law is construed as that which is willed by the individual or individuals in power. ['It is a disgrace. It is a rigged system. I had a rigged system, except we won by so much. This court system, the judges in this court system, federal court. They ought to look into Judge Curiel because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace. Ok? But we will come back in November.'] ["The problem is we have the Geneva Conventions, all sorts of rules and regulations, so the soldiers are afraid to fight."] [On telling generals to violate the Geneva Conventions, US Constitution, and the Uniform Military Code of Justice: "They won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me. Believe me. I’m a leader; I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it."]</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
9<i>, </i>A common attribute of <i>fascistic</i> movements is the creation of alternate realities, often with an adamant and repetitive disregard for the truth, even in the face of abundant veridical evidence to the contrary, especially when it serves the ends of the partisans or when said evidence conflicts with doctrine. ['An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.'] [(On unemployment: 'I've seen numbers of 24 percent — I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent. 5.3 percent unemployment -- that is the biggest joke there is in this country. … The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you, you have some great economists that will tell you it's a 30, 32. And the highest I've heard so far is 42 percent.']</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
10. Symbolism is often an important aspect of <i>Fascism</i>, especially patriotic symbols that evoke feelings of group identity. The Nazis, in particular, made effective use of this. [An example, one of many, would be Donald Trump Jr.'s tweeted picture with the Trumps next to a green frog, a common alt-right/anti-Semitic and racist symbol<i>, </i>Of course, all the standard patriotic regalia and lighting and music are part and parcel to the Trump campaign, as it is with every campaign; but there are insidious instances of using other racist and anti-Semitic memes and symbols.]</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The foregoing is by no means an exhaustive list, but I believe it captures the essentials, and while other, non-fascistic right and left populist movements might share some of these characteristics at various times and in various places, I think they are substantively different.<i> </i>I have bracketed just a small sample of statements by Trump himself, simply to illustrate and encapsulate some of the reasons why I think he meets these ten criteria. The amount of additional evidence of his <i>fascistic</i> nature and policies, along with his unsuitability and utter venality as a human being is simply overwhelming. The things I have remarked upon are all in addition to his hateful statements towards the disabled and women, an admission to committing physical assault, and to being a sexual predator. Not to mention his repeated failure to adhere to contracts with vendors; discriminatory practices as a landlord; and his use of racist tropes (e.g., birtherism). Then there were Trump’s threats to prosecute and jail his opponent, Hillary Clinton, if he won, or, if he lost, to not recognize the results of the election. The latter are among the hallmarks of authoritarian strongmen and authoritarian regimes everywhere.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While I think <i>Fascism</i> and what it conveys is an important descriptor, and one worth preserving and using when it fits, I will readily admit its overuse by the left has diminished its force and gravity. Moreover, it seems to many to be a dead doctrine, one now buried in the historical dustbin. It isn't. Setting that aside, though, the fact remains that the ascendancy of Trump and his craven Republican converts represent the most dangerous political phenomena in the US in the modern era.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The only silver lining is there is some potential that an intellectually and morally responsible center-right party will rise from the ashes, and the apparent destruction of the modern Republican Party, a party transformed (historical irony, here!) by the white flight of the post-Confederate Democrats after the Civil Rights legislation of the mid-Sixties, and an unholy alliance between self-dealing corporate welfarests and tax-reduction hounds, along with assorted disaffected racists, white Evangelicals, and white workers, a coalition cobbled together by Nixon and Reagan (the so-called silent and moral majorities, respectively), and with the help of considerable gerrymandering at the congressional level, courtesy of the likes of Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove. And all the while, the more rational Republican establishment was winking at the crass incitements of the unlettered by the Breitbarts, Limbaughs, Hannitys, and O'Reillys of the world, believing at the end a rational man can be inserted (e.g., a McCain or a Romney), whilst the rabble are once again returned to their trailer parks, guns, and religion. It did not happen this time. I strongly suspect both Nixon and Reagan would be rather appalled by the Frankenstein monster they helped to create--culminating in a hydra-headed amalgam of the Old Confederacy, Palinism, and Trumpism. It is no longer the party of Javits, Dirksen, Eisenhower, or T.R. (who left the party, despite today's ahistorical Republican hagiography of him), let alone the party of Lincoln<i>, </i>Today it is the party of the ultimate vulgarian, Donald Trump.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even with Trump's impeachment or removal under the 25th Amendment, or a defeat for a second term, I still worry about the possibility of violence, an intractable divide in our population, an impotent executive with a recalcitrant Congress (that already lies in wait to foil a left of center president), and an unstable world with dictators, fanatics, and jingoists run amok, some considerable amount of which is of the United State's own making. But most of all, I worry about the here and now, for Trump has access to the nuclear codes. , It has become patently evident that he has an unstable and petulant temperament. It would be a mistake to be fooled by his apparent isolationism and pacific statements in the past, for his behaviors and language have always been hyper-aggressive, and he has an overwhelming need to appear tough–––and like many of those who are especially egocentric and thin-skinned, he manifests a singular problem with self-esteem, one veiled by a very fragile ego. This is a mixture that portends disaster with such a person in charge of the most powerful military, police, and intelligence apparatus in the world<i>. </i>It is an odd thing that this old McGovern liberal has come to believe that the leaders of the FBI and military could be the only things that stand in the way of a president gone mad whilst the Congress and courts fiddle. I am not at all comforted by the military or state police being in such a position, but there it is. It should have never gotten this far. One wonders how we can reverse this awful predicament ... ridding ourselves of Trump is not enough. We must eradicate Trumpism. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some have said that it couldn't happen here.<i> </i>Our institutions will prevail. Well, I suspect something similar was thought in the most technologically advanced, literate, and cosmopolitan nation on the face of the earth in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The nation of Beethoven, Kant, and Goethe. And it not only happened, it happened very suddenly<i>, </i>And in the process, both conservative and liberal forces were co-opted or eliminated. Had there been a choice for, say, Pappan or Schleicher over Hitler in 1932-33, both imperfect men, much as Clinton or Sanders were imperfect ... but not <i>Fascists</i>, and both realistic alternatives at the time. Tens of millions of lives might have been spared. <i> </i>I do not expect Trump will kill millions, though I am shaken to think that a man of his temperament is Commander-in-Chief But even in the absence of causing a military conflagration, I do think he could irrevocably alter the course of history in a dark and sinister way. It is therefore essential that we do everything we can to remove Trump from office and rollback Trumpism. Liberals, moderates, and responsible conservatives must also defeat the GOP majority by the widest margin possible at all levels in 2018 to change the balance of power in the Congress and also in state offices. Only then can rational conservatives begin to rebuild a responsible opposition and center-right party. Trumpism is not your grandfather's conservatism by any stretch of the imagination. The principal goal must be to utterly discredit and toss out Trumpism, no, <i>Fascism,</i> from the nation before it spreads any further like the virulent cancer that it is. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
MB</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-47104213534992162452013-03-15T23:37:00.000-07:002018-02-10T03:43:37.258-08:00Music for the Ages and the Ageless: Younger Now (the Album): by Miley Ray Cyrus <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">S</span>ome of us are old enough to remember when Sgt. Pepper's came out in 1967 there were actually fans of the Fab Four who were disappointed. Some of the discomfited were among my friends. The album was different. <i>Very</i> different; radical in fact. Totally unexpected. No bubble gum yeah, yeah, yeah, I wanna hold your hand pop. No hormonal, plaintive teen-angst stuff begging for Help! It was adult! And full of meaning: Almost Dylanesque in that sense. The Beatles had hinted at maturity in <i>Rubber Soul</i> and <i>Revolver</i>, but nothing quite like this before. More than that, though, it was transformational, a little weird (then), but revolutionary, as the entire music world would realize soon enough. Nothing would ever be the same again in popular music. And today, some 50-years later, it is still widely considered to be the best album ever produced within rock and its several subspecies. More than any other in popular music, Sgt. Pepper's was <i>the</i> transformational work. And just to add perspective to contemporaneous music criticism: the venerable New York Times' music critic, along with many others, didn't approve, indeed, panned the album's orchestration, construction, and lyrics. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ushering in the new can be hard and even controversial at first. There really have not been transformational artists in pop-rock in the last decade. Most everything in recent years ... in pop-rock, metal, hard rock, and alternative--let's just call it all <i>rock</i> for simplicity, for that's each species principal tap root ... has been purely derivative rather than fresh, unique, and innovative. That doesn't make it bad music. It just means it is more of the same, a rehashing of similar styles, some better than others to be sure. If it is formulaic, saccharine, and heard in elevators, in which case, chances are, it's no longer rock n roll. And as for the singing, well, vocals are only one aspect of the art ... and there are plenty of good vocalists around, look in any church choir or glee club. But there is a difference between standard choirboy/girl singing, the kind of thing one would find at any good performing arts school or a large church, and making a listener want to get out his chair. <i>Good</i> rock gets you out of your chair.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While some wags seem to think music springs fully-formed from the head of Zeus like Athena, unfettered by exogenous influences, the fact is that <i>all </i>music "appropriates" from other cultures and what precedes it. There is a lot of nonsense afoot about "appropriation" right now, and mostly by those who know nothing of music history or who wish to preen as uber-aware on racial justice. Music is also inherently iterative and recursive, and its component parts are generally not new at all. The "newness" comes about from how it's put together, how those recursive rules are utilized, such that when it's great, the whole of the song ends up being greater than the sum of the parts. The blending and arrangement of its constituent elements is what makes it into something innovative ... whether adding country to hip hop, or EDM to psychedelia, or combining all of these things in a way that no one else has done.<br />
<br />
Aside from instrumentation and technology, though, an essential aspect of great music is in the lyrics ... the words the artist chooses, the fit with the composition, and the emotion they evoke. The means by which the lyrics are conveyed is of particular importance ... the vocalization, with all of the little hiccups, legato, phrasing, staccato, projection, intonations, head and chest voices, full voice, guttural sounds, and so forth, that accompany the vocals. And not least of all, it is <i>the intention </i>behind the piece. Of course, rock as a genre, by its very nature, is meant to upset, to cajole, to get people to move, think, rebel against the machine, want sex, want to dance, want to punch the sky, and <i>made to feel</i>. It is not granola or vanilla. It is hot sauce and chocolate with nuts. It works in contrasts with misery or delight, peaks and valleys. <i>Not</i> an even strain or even keel or steady as she goes. <i>Rock rattles the soul.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Comes now Miley Ray Cyrus. Permit me to encapsulate some history, which we know began with the adorable Disney character, little Hannah Montana: precocious and pretty, safe and virginal, watchable by youngins and parents alike. Talented, but entirely Disneyfied and derivative. And <i>then,</i> oops, there's <i>Bangerz.</i> Or as Little Richard said back in rock's most formative years: "Good golly Miss Molly, sure like to ball.When you're rockin' and a rollin' can't hear your momma call!" Imagine what the critics said about that! With <i>Bangerz</i>, parents' and their kids' wigs are flying topsy-turvy, each for entirely different reasons -- and Miley Cyrus emerges. And many are of course outraged by this transformation. All of the sudden virginal Hannah is gone, and a young woman with the normal urges of a young woman (we fathers don't always like that) comes forth in music, and she even does it on a public stage and in video in a very explicit way! Parents who thought Madonna was great 30 years before are suddenly sounding like pinched Puritans fresh off the Mayflower. Simultaneously, we learn then that this is an artist who can indeed both sing <i>and </i>rock out, and adopt and adapt various styles to her purpose, and we see even today people imitating what she perfected then, from Demi to Katy to Taylor. And on its heals, some side-show events soon occurred with Miley covering some greats in her backyard, and all without artifice or electronic aids, proving once and for all that this girl has an incredible vocal ability: a four-octave range with the ability to transition from contralto to mezzo soprano, smoothly,with resonance, and also from one genre to another with relative ease.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But then, what does she do? She goes and changes again! And again it irritates and alienates those who want more of the same. Some fans skip it as an aberration, even today some do, thinking it best forgotten. She gave the album away for free. Who does that? Well, Miley Cyrus does. And here, in <i>Miley Cyrus and Her Dead Petz</i>, we see she is not only a great performer, but also an artist .. and a musician that is to be reckoned with. <i>Petz </i>is a psychedelic pot pouri modernized with electronica with hints of hip hop and country. The best writing on it is what she wrote herself. It also showed she is a formidable lyricist, and that she is to John Lennon's depth what Taylor Swift is to Paul McCartney's cleverness. Critics such as the most well-known Miley-hating screed, <i>Pitchfork</i>, saw it as a vanity project. But tell me, what kind of art isn't inherently vain? One wants others to see it or hear it ... it is an expression of oneself. Art is inherently exhibitionist, and it is therefore "vain" by definition. I will take Elton John's and John Mayer's assessment over Pitchfork's ... and both of them among other luminaries consider it a work of genius. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lo! yet another change: <i>Younger Now. </i>Which brings us to today and my main purpose, here.<i> </i>As one might expect, there's already been negative commentary from the peanut gallery--consisting of those stuck in the past and, predictably, don't want this <i>"</i>new" Miley. Heavens, it has country, they say. It's a craven appeal to the general public, to Nashville even, they say--<i>God help us--</i>or that her new sound (specifically in "Malibu") is creepily pure as one wag in the <i>New Yorker</i> said. <i>USA Today,</i> hardly the <i>ex cathedra</i> source of musical analysis for aficionados, but read by many, says it's at once sanitized and tame. <i>Huh? </i>And, oh yes, that she left the hood behind after exploiting it, as though every rapper were from Compton and didn't borrow English, iambic pentameter, and 4/4 beats ... among many other "cultural appropriations". We want Bangerzley back, they say. Here's the thing, though. Bangerzley never left! Nor did Hannah. Nor did Petzley. They are <i>all</i> there. But with more.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is the same Miley. But it's a Miley who has changed and does not deny who or what she was, for who she was is still a part of what she is today. It is the <i>becoming</i> Miley. Much as we all should be: becoming--emergent--building on our past. It is Miley's acceptance of who she was, a past that does not wholly define her now. It is also an appreciation and re-absorption of a time (be it idealized or real) <i>before</i> the pressure of having to be something else, having to prove something to others, having to escape, to leap in the herky-jerky way from childhood to young adulthood ... a process we all go through one way or another ... and along with the comfort and happiness that eventually comes to many of us from not having to justify or excuse who one was then or who one is today, and becoming comfortable in one's own skin. <i>USA Today </i>and others missed that. But many more serious music critics are getting it right. Did we expect she should be the 15-year old virginal girl next door <i>all</i> her life? Or that forever she must appear as a 20-year old vixen in spandex and pasties? Or can we now just simply accept she is now a grown woman with an extraordinary gift for music, music that will reflect who she is at any given time, an authentic person, not simply a pop star, and that who she is will evolve over time, as is the case with all of us one might hope.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Younger Now</i>, the album, is a musical masterpiece. I don't use such an appellation lightly. Consisting of 11 simple songs, Miley collaborated with the musical polymath, Oren Yoel, who was the producer and instrumentalist on the album. Miley performed all of the vocals on ten of the songs, including the back-up vocals, as she nearly always does. Miley wrote all the lyrics herself except for "Rainbowland," where she collaborated on both the writing and singing with her Godmother and country legend, Dolly Parton. Miley has given various explanations for the overarching theme of the album, including--as I said before-- getting in touch with one's inner child, the freedom before the onset of late-teen and early-adult angst. Another is that she sees some of it as speaking out against ageism and division, and with the hope of bringing people together. This is quite consistent with some remarks she's made on the political front ... seeking to unify through music, notwithstanding differences in opinions. She has a very definite liberal outlook on a host of issues, and has been outspoken; but she is wont to get along with those who don't share her view ... characteristic of her according to those who know her best, such as her musical manager Stacy Jones, for we are told she is pathologically authentic and preternaturally nice, wanting as much as anything to be liked by all and to like them in return. <br />
<br />
Some of the album shows anger or emotional turmoil resulting from episodes in Miley's life ... and in at least in one case, in the life of a friend. Listening closely, one will find influences of multiple genres throughout the album, but I think it can best be described as more classical, early rock or rockabilly in terms of overall orientation. To be sure, there are big strains of country ... but also hints of hip hop, pop-rock, psychedelic, EDM, and alternative ... <i>But it's Miley Cyrus most of all.</i> That's important; and it's also the "beauty part," as old timers in New York are wont to say. It has her sometimes idiosyncratic idiom and grammar, her Tennessee twang, and, characteristically, it's also part autobiography. It also has the infectious punctuations ... the yeahs, and the ohs, and the guttural exclamations, breaks, and hiccups that characterize her vocals. One of the things that makes her music outstanding to me is that I can listen to it over long periods. There are other great vocalists and artists that I can listen to, but usually for only a few songs before I need something else. Miley, like only a handful of others, is someone I can listen to for hours at a time without a break. This album makes one want to drive and drive in the car, like the old days with my eight track ... not stopping til it's over, going around the block just one more time until it is and before pulling into the garage.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'll make some brief observations about each piece, beginning with the two about which I've already written in separate articles, and at much greater length than I'll do here. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The eponymous song, "Younger Now," blends country, pop, rock of an older era, and electronica all into one, and it manages to lyrically convey the idea that, while Cyrus has changed, that she is not who she was, she still embraces her past, and it affirms what the Greek philosopher Heraclitus suggested long ago, that change is the only thing that is constant and the central principle of the universe. The obvious implication is that she will change again. Thus Cyrus writes, "no one stays the same," and she like Heraclitus proclaims the ultimate unity of opposites, "what goes up must come down." It also says something powerful about emerging from youth, which is, that once one stops working so hard to be and appear older, and quits grasping at the illusion of freedom from authority, in this case, the shackles of childhood and the rigors of television stardom at a young age, one feels a certain sense of relief, indeed, younger than those years of tumult and discovery most of us experience in mid-adolescence to the onset of adulthood, and therefore, "I feel so much younger now." In other words, perhaps like she felt once before all the <i>Sturm und Drang </i>occurred, when she was a happy-go-lucky girl (as those who know her best say she was). The lyrics are simple, but beautiful, and packed with meaning. She sings smoothly, deliberately, and without showing off. There are no giant belts or glass-shattering notes. The volume is fairly fixed and the enunciation clear. Her notes are both precise and to the point without unnecessary embellishment.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Malibu" is a love song, highly personal, as has been much of her music. It's upbeat with some definite foot-tapping, torso moving, and head bobbing back-beats. Lyrically simple, Miley’s voice is in wonderful form, and her accent is subtly present, as is her easy conversational idiom. This is not a power ballad, but it has a couple of soaring moments, notably a run with some progressively louder and higher ahhhs that caused some chills in my spine first time I heard it. Unlike so many in recent generations, Miley does not engage in gratuitous runs or melisma to cover for a lack of precision or pitch problems as has become all too common. She uses them sparingly, but when she does, she does so with ease. For much of the song, one can almost imagine her singing it lovingly to her lover as part of a conversation on a park bench. It's what the kids call a "bop".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Rainbowland" is a joint effort with Miley's Godmother, Dolly Parton, one of the greatest songwriters and country artists of any era. Their writing styles and voices fit hand and glove, and it is bound to be a classic and loved by people of all musical persuasions. It might be the song that has the greatest crossover appeal in the world of country, in no small part because of the inimitable Dolly .. although there are others that could well cross that line too. Miley comes by country honestly, for Dolly and her father, Billy Ray Cyrus, after all, are country royalty .. and she's sat on the knee of many a country legend since she was born. And it is simply undeniable that a great deal of Miley's work from the very beginning has had a distinctive country aspect in her presentation. In a recent interview with the Recording Academy, she said that she and Dolly wrote the song, "because we wanted to write a song that could really make a difference — that could speak to the current situation of not only our country but the world. It says 'We are Rainbows/Me and you/Every color/Every hue,' and it's about embracing everyone that is different." Along with "Inspired," it is a song with a message, a plea, really, but not heavy handed and both sweet and persuasive.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Week Without You" is a breakup song of sorts. Internet wags have already speculated that it has to do with Miley's breakup in 2013. Perhaps. I'll wait for Miley to tell us that. Maybe it's just the recapture of some of the things she recollects that she was feeling then, and with some poetic license that includes what one imagines they might have felt in circumstances that didn't occur, which, of course, is what songwriters do. As method actors know, the same emotion can in fact underlie different events or thoughts or lyrics. More accurately, I think it's a hypothetical break-up, but within the context of how she might feel or might have felt. We all know she knows the emotion that accompanies a breakup; she can evince that emotion without being specific about the details of what really happened. On the one hand she sings, "I know that I gave you my heart. But you stomped it to the ground, And that's what got me wondering what it's like, To not have you around." As though she's only wondering, not acting on it. Then she says, "don't want to wonder what it's like ... To not have you around ...You know I'd miss you, baby." Which is why I say it's hypothetical, not historical. The song is sung at once matter-of-factly and plaintively. No vocal pyrotechnics, mostly staccato, but with a toe-tapping back-beat, with a smooth intro with piano and guitar, and with a very fifties kind of rock sound as one finds in other pieces in this album. It is lyrically and rhythmically tight, and Miley is using her very solid rock voice, which, in my opinion, is her best voice, one that only a handful of women singers can equal, and none of the current generation can surpass. This is really a perfect song.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Miss You So Much" is one of the finest love songs ever written. By a 24-year old, no less. So accuse me of hyperbole. <i>But I am right</i>. It is also as country as can be, even more than "Rainbowland," and with just the right amount of pop elements to keep her traditional pop-rocker fans satisfied. And the lyrics are both tight and beautiful. It apparently is about a friend's loss of a lover who overdosed. It is a very moving piece, and one with which most people can probably identify. "They say love can drive you crazy, My dear, Wanna trap you in a locket. Or in a pocket. So I can keep you near. No I'd never hurt you, If you fall I'd pick you up and drink your tears. But how can I miss you so much, When you're right here." One might imagine someone at a gravesite. Or holding a picture. And who in the early stage of a romance with the love of your life has not felt similarly? ... that even when the one you love is by your side you cannot get enough, and your need for that person is insatiable. It leaves to the imagination what's going through Miley's or her protagonist's mind ... and that is what good songwriting should do. Oren's steel guitar work is a perfect touch to this wonderful piece. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"I Would Die For You" is part confessional and part commitment. It's a beautiful testimony to love, at once plaintive and at times forelorn. "You are everything to me, And I would die for you ... There have been times I was up all night, Crying in the dark so I sleep with the light on. I've heard I've got words like a knife that I don't always choose just so wisely. But I see trees in the colored leaves when I think about all we could be." Oren Yoel's backing guitar is just right. Miley gives a few hints of her upper range ... which is very large .. but there is nothing show-offy. The background chorus (by Miley) is haunting.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Thinkin" is a lover's complaint. It's about absence and longing .. "you ain't been callin me enough (nough nough nough) now I'm longing for your touch (touch touch touch)." It's about being pissed off, but wanting someone, nonetheless: "I don't know where you always go ... we ain't got nothing if we ain't got no trust." It is the kind of song you can expect a lot of young people are going to be lip synching very soon. I think it applies to both sexes of all sexual orientations at one time or another. "I been thinking way too much (much, much, much) ... you won't pick up the phone (phone phone phone)." I mean, who hasn't felt that at one time or another in a romantic thrall? This song has a very definite hip hop punch in the chorus ... "All I do is think about you" with countryesque refrains. It's a great mixture of sounds.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Bad Mood" is similar to "Thinkin" in the sense there's some anger, but there's confidence in it, and saying to her lover just exactly what the case is going to be. "And I wonder what you would do, yeah, if you couldn't rely on me ... I always wake up in a bad mood ... You, know, it's gone on way too long, and you know it's wrong ... and when it gets rough I get tough ... I've had enough." You can visualize Miley punching the sky, her eyes on fire, and poking someone in the chest as she lays down the law. Oren's percussive work is splendid and makes it a fine head-bobbing piece. Kids are gonna be humming along on this one. It's driving music. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And if you're looking for something with some classic rock guitaring by Oren, very reminiscent of 60s bands like the Kinks, and with even more pointed anger, from Miley, then"Love Someone" is your song. Here Miley goes full Taylor Swift with some bluesy-to-rock vocals. "Ever since the day that I met you, I knew you weren't the one. But nothing ever stops me from forgetting packing all my shit and moving on ... to make someone stay you gotta love someone, You gotta love someone (Hey!)." This song is going sure to arouse some feelings on the part of anyone who is aggrieved with a failed romance with a self-centered and, what would appears to be, an unromantic lover. It's pretty clear this is not about the person with whom she is engaged to be married, and who has been her principal love interest since her mid teens. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Much has been said about Miley's sexuality, not least of all by herself. She came out as pansexual in 2015. I won't speculate on who this song is about, but hints are readily available on the public record. "She's Not Him" is a love song and a lament of sorts, a dolorous kind of apology to someone who loves her. There's some <i>Dead Petz </i>elements to this ... both with Miley's vocal background and Oren's instrumentals. It is about loving someone other than the someone who loves you, and in this case, there's a woman with whom she cannot fall in love, and a man who she does love, and try as the other woman might, it's not going to happen for her, because she cannot ever be him. "No matter what you say, no matter what you do, I just can't fall in love with you, cuz you're not him." It's a sweet song, even a mournful and apologetic one, for she knows it's hurtful to another, someone she doesn't want to hurt, but she has no choice. "You don't deserve all the bullshit I put you through ... Every time you walk through the door, I swear to God you're more beautiful than before, but you're not him." Feelings are incorrigible, after all, and they can't be willed away.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Inspired" was released as a single after "Malibu" and before "Younger Now," and its proceeds were donated to Miley's charity, the Happy Hippie Foundation. It is a wonderful piece, one reminiscent of Lennon's "Imagine" in its simple beauty and profound meaning. It is not a rock piece or what the young people call a "bop." She was motivated to write this when she supported Hillary Clinton for the presidency in 2016, though it's allusion to contemporaneous politics is not immediately apparent. And just like "Imagine," which nearly fifty years later we hear being played today, "Inspired" has not been a chart burner; however, it will undoubtedly outlive many that ultimately will be consigned to the dustbin of forgettable songs. Lennon: "You may say I'm a dreamer, But I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us., And the world will be as one." Miley: "How can we escape all the fear and all the hate? Is anyone watching us down here? Death is life, it's not a curse. Reminds us of time and what it's worth. To make the most out of it while we're here." Every time I hear this song I am moved. And something else: Lennon knew how to make number one hits as well as anyone if not better; but he began to write for the sake of art in his late twenties and early thirties, and to a point where he no longer cared about the charts. It's pretty obvious that young Miley Cyrus is already at that point, let the chips fall where they may, she is going to do what <i>she </i>wants. And very frankly, that is one of the things that separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff in great musical artistry. Genius doesn't require consensus. We who are not geniuses eventually come around.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The overarching theme of the album is surely autobiographical ... and if it is not in completely accurate in its details, I suspect it depicts real emotions about real events, and it's intended to evince and evoke those feelings. It is mostly old fashioned countrified rock n roll (which, after all, is rooted in rhythm and blues, Gospel, <i>and </i>country), though filtered through the lens of some modern electronic wizardry, and with hints of hip hop and other genres throughout. It also puts the lie to the notion that she abandoned hip hop, by the way, which she <i>neither said nor did</i>, but was falsely accused of doing, or of wearing "black" like some sort of costume and then throwing it away. Nothing could be further from the truth. That she incorporated some hip hop iconography in her music is little different than African Americans adopting rock iconography, as Prince did routinely, to cite one of many examples, moving back and forth among genres. She abandoned misogyny and objectification and, as a husband, brother, son, and the father of a girl, I am grateful for that. While I have my favorites, and some pieces are better than others, it is as good as an album can be. Pertinent, authentic, and often enough, simply riveting.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here's the thing, folks. Miley Ray Cyrus is a formidable artist, one for this era and for eras to come. Elvis is one of her musical heroes, and one can feel his influence throughout in the way she attacks the vocals and the visuals on video and stage. I venture to say she is a natural heir to Elvis in presentation, perhaps more than any other artist in recent memory, and maybe ever. No male has pulled it off as well ... The King's chemistry is hard to describe, but there's a lot of it in this small package. One of my friends referred to her as the musical lovechild of Elvis and Madonna. That seems quite apt to me. Lyrically, however, she has more in common with Lennon and Dylan. She has Elvis-like intonations and the charisma and revolutionary spirit of both Elvis and Madonna, who, I might add, were both castigated for a variety of reasons in their day, too, for not being good musically to being merely prurient. Those sages are dead and forgotten. Elvis and Madonna's places in history are secure. I keep repeating this, but Miley Cyrus is only 24! It is easy to forget how young she is given that she's been a public figure for a decade. But she came into her own just a few years ago. Lennon and McCartney were several years older when Sgt. Pepper's was released, and Madonna had yet to put out her first album at Miley's age. Mark my words, this work will be imitated in short order. Much as Shania put some pop-rock in country, Miley is putting country back into pop-rock, much as it was some seven decades ago. There can be little doubt that she will be much more than a footnote when the history of this era's music is written. She's already a shelf of books unto herself, and I suspect she's only scratched the surface.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Michael Berumen 9-28-2017</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-73685086935727421392013-03-15T23:36:00.000-07:002017-09-28T22:12:29.715-07:00Younger Now (song): Miley Ray Cyrus Paean to Change<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Miley Cyrus has proved she is the only young woman in pop-rock today whose music is not fundamentally derivative. Nothing in music stands alone completely apart from the past, and all music relies on appropriation from it. However, the most seminal artists who set the stage for the future figure out a way to combine and improve upon the most worthwhile elements of the past to create something different. Music becomes sanitized, vanilla, overproduced, and formulaic in time, that is, until the next leap forward, and that leap is not always even noticeable at the time it occurs by many contemporaries, and often appreciated only when looking back with greater distance and clarity. Cognoscenti and people stuck in the music of their generation are often quick to dismiss or, in some circumstances, even revile revolutionaries, but I am sure that time will prove to be on my side in this case, and with the critics and the public alike. Miley Ray Cyrus is such a revolutionary, and her revolution began with <i>Bangerz</i>. Watch many of the videos of today and listen to the music. You will see the and hear much that first germinated there, though it is seldom remarked upon now. And like any proper revolutionary, she continues to explore, upset, provoke, and transform.<br />
<br />
In terms of vocal style, songwriting, innovation, and presence, Cyrus falls in line with the likes of Elvis, Lennon, Bowie, and Madonna. I choose these artists for a reason. She has the magnetism and charisma of Elvis, and his innate vocal talent to sing with alacrity in multiple genres and with a broad vocal range, including the ability to croon a ballad, sing country, or rock out. She has the deep and provocative writing skills of John Lennon, and she is a master of idiomatic usage, with the solecisms and idiosyncrasies of common and regional parlance, as is done with mastery by all great writers from Shakespeare to Dylan. Bowie on the other hand was a musical chameleon, and he could innovate in one style and then, in a seeming instant, he'd change and innovate in a completely different one; young Cyrus is already onto her fourth significant stylistic difference. And Madonna was the first modern female pop star who ably used all aspects of performance artistry, including vocals, writing, visuals, and choreography, thereby creating comprehensive performance art, and yet, unlike many who followed, her singular presence, a veritable force of nature, was always the dominant part of the presentation. One simply cannot take one's eyes off of her, notwithstanding what's happening peripherally, and the same is true of Cyrus. More than one less capable artist uses staging to distract from what would otherwise be a mediocre song and vocal ability. But Cyrus is more than anything a vocalist and a songwriter, and she does not need props to make her presence known.<br />
<br />
I have made the case for her genius elsewhere, one which was nascent in <i>Bangerz</i>, but became especially evident in <i>Miley Cyrus and Her Dead Petz.</i> And now we have the first three songs from her album, <i>Younger Now</i>, including the eponymous single just released. The lyrics in her new album and this piece are all written solely by Cyrus, and the musical composition was co-written and co-produced by Oren Yoel. Yoel, a multi-instrumentalist, did much of the instrumentation himself. It is but more eating of the pudding that has served to validate my earlier arguments. Miley Cyrus is a musical genius, and she stands apart from her contemporaries, not because she is the best at some single thing, but because she d<i>oes the entire thing</i> in a better and more novel way, which is to say, she does things that no one else does. The one, single thing I do think she does better than anyone else among her contemporaries, though, is write with a kind of simple profundity that only a handful of artists in pop-rock have been able to do, and Lennon and Dylan come to my mind. She is only 24, and I am thinking of what they wrote at a similar time in their lives (yes, I was around then!), and I must say, she is equal to them at that stage in their careers, albeit, not as prolific. I am excited about what lies ahead.<br />
<br />
"Younger Now" blends country, pop, rock of an older era, and electronica all into one, and it manages to lyrically convey the idea that, while Cyrus has changed, that she is not who she was, she still embraces her past, and it affirms what the Greek philosopher Heraclitus suggested long ago, that <i>change</i> is the only thing that is constant and the central principle of the universe. The obvious implication is that she will change again. Thus Cyrus writes, "no one stays the same," and she like Heraclitus proclaims the ultimate unity of opposites, "what goes up must come down." It also says something powerful about emerging from youth, which is, that once one stops working so hard to be and appear older, and quits grasping at the illusion of freedom from authority, in this case, the shackles of childhood and the rigors of television stardom at a young age, one feels a certain sense of relief, indeed, younger than those years of tumult and discovery most of us experience in mid-adolescence to the onset of adulthood, and therefore, "I feel so much younger now." In other words, perhaps like she felt once before all the <i>Sturm und Drang</i> occurred, when she was a happy-go-lucky girl (as those who know her best say she was). The lyrics are simple, but beautiful, and packed with meaning. They include nothing gratuitous or nonsensical. I was very much reminded of some of Lennon's early-middle work, and particularly some of his contributions to <i>Sgt. Pepper's</i>, arguably the most important album in pop-rock.<br />
<br />
One of the regrettable trends in today's popular music is the advent of the overuse of <i>melisma</i> and gratuitous runs, beginning in the early nineties. This has morphed into gratuitous warbling around notes throughout a song that the amateur might consider to be indicative of great skill, when, in fact, it is often used to obfuscate a lack of precise pitch. There is a place for a run and for <i>melisma</i>, but they should be used more sparingly. Cyrus is more than capable of using many vocal techniques to full effect. She has a four-octave range, and unlike most females i the soprano range , she can comfortably perform as a lyric contralto, a rare and difficult area for most women. Her natural state is that of mezzo-soprano. In "Younger Now," Cyrus sings smoothly, deliberately, and without showing off. There are no giant belts or glass-shattering notes. The volume is fairly fixed and the enunciation clear. Her Nashville twang is there, but it never overwhelms. Her notes are both precise and to the point without unnecessary embellishment. There is nothing flashy or jarring. It is just perfectly done for the task at hand.<br />
<br />
The video for "Younger Now" is very possibly her best yet, which is not inconsequential given the excellence of both "Wrecking Ball" and "We Can't Stop." It was co-directed by Cyrus and Diane Martel. I was told that Cyrus did her own styling and makeup. Indeed, I think this video stands up well to the best of both Madonna and Lady Gaga, arguably among the greatest in videographic performance art. It is not full of whizbang pyrotechnics, however, and it is not particularly complex in choreography like, say, some of Beyonce or Madonna's work. It does however make considerable use of symbolism and iconography, which is certainly reminiscent of Madonna's finest early work.<br />
<br />
Obviously my interpretation of the video could well be wrong, but I'd be surprised if I were far off on most of it. It is to no small degree autobiographical. It begins with some natural sound effects: rain, crickets, and a croaking frog, which rumor has it is Cyrus' famous pet frog, Angel...and then a pass by some books on a shelf, including a very noticeable book about Elvis Presley, and then Cyrus waking up in bed, a child-sized twin bed as a grown woman, which I take to symbolize a new beginning, and a new person, while the past, she sings, all seems rather like a dream. She makes it clear that she is not the same as before, but that she likes and does not disown who she was before. One of the most interesting parts is Cyrus and a small puppet that strikingly resembles her younger self and stage persona, the virginal all-American girl that she left behind...and that, when she did leave her manufactured self behind, upset so many...and an image which she appeared for several years to wholly reject by acting opposite of it. Here, she seems at once charmed and bemused by her former self ... indeed, even shows shows affection for her former self. She includes children and old people in various places in the video, representing the fact that we all were young and are certain to grow old, but that the old have not forgotten what it was like to be young at the same time, as shown by their doing some things one might only expect a youngster to do, including even some gymnastics. Cyrus shows herself in different eras: countryfied, rocking out, hip hop, pole dancing, and so forth, and she ends with a homage to the past in rock and roll, with some simple dancing surrounded by old and young dancers, rather reminiscent of dancing at the hop or American Bandstand in the fifties or early sixties (she is a noted admirer and expert on early rock, according to her longtime associate, Stacy Jones). This segment also includes a few moves that remind one of the hoedown-throwdown dance of Hannah Montana fame.<br />
<br />
There is even an apparent allusion to her admitted sexual fluidity, including a big lip-kissing smackeroo planted one of the older ladies bedecked in a <i>Bangeresqe</i> outfit and hair style. In another segment she appears to be a life-sized puppet, which I take as an allusion to her Disney studio days and as a child star under the control of others, and perhaps even a subtle swipe at her objectification. Her attire ranges from country classic, a la her godmother Dolly Parton, as she cruises down the boulevard on a float, to Elvis in his earlier rocker stage to his latter Liberace-Las Vegas phase, complete with a rhinestone jumpsuit, stiff turned-up collar and huge belt buckle, and even Elvis-like coif, to simple, old-fashioned girlish femininity in a 1950's style get-up, with coquettish hair flipping and purposeful cuteness.<br />
<br />
Cyrus makes several clear references to her controversial <i>Bangerz </i>era (which really only contained a couple of songs one might consider to be influenced significantly by hip hop), including one of her famous out-of-the-hood poses with a full-toothed grin straight out of "We Can't Stop," whilst surrounded by the old men and ladies in full <i>Bangerz</i> pose. This was a deliberate statement, having been accused of abandoning hip hop, and of course she was falsely accused of appropriating and exploiting "black culture," abandoning it, then disrespecting it. This was a complete misrepresentation of the facts, and it is perpetrated by those who know little of either anthropology or musicology, and completely ignore what she was really rejecting. and I have dealt with that issue elsewhere. It is enough to say here that what she abandoned was not a culture, but misogyny and the objectification of women, and she does not deny her own role in both, but now hopes to be a better role model for girls. That is called maturity. As for exploitation, that is almost laughable when juxtaposed with those in the hip-hop music industry who do it daily and give back nothing to anyone, as compared to what she does with considerable generosity. She has changed.<br />
<br />
I am pretty sure there is still much to be discovered in this video that symbolizes different aspects of her life. In the meantime, in the absence of a blow-by-blow description from her, I must be content with some educated guesses. It is enough to say, here, that it is a remarkable video ... and, in fact, it is a work of visual and musical art. And while many themes are incorporated, the constant one is the idea of change being a certainly ... and that that it is something to embrace.<br />
<br />
To conclude, I am going to hazard a guess that the album to be released in September will be the pop-rock album of the year, if not in sales and awards, then most certainly in historical terms. I did not use the Sgt. Pepper's reference casually before. And that, the judgment of history, is the more important thing in the final analysis. Cyrus is already very wealthy and famous the world over at a very young age. I know enough about her to know that what she does now is not really for material gain ... for a person of her wealth, she lives rather simply, and managing her charities and being with her family seem much more important to her than leading the life of a Kardashian. I think she makes music because that is the very center of her being ... and that her ultimate goal is to create great art. She has already done that.<br />
<br />
Other Miley Cyrus Articles:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://meberumen.blogspot.com/2013/03/21st-century-rock-queen-miley-ray-cyrus.html">21st Century Pop Rock Queen: Miley Ray Cyrus</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://meberumen.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-vicissitudes-of-genius-miley-and.html">The Vicissitudes of Genius: Miley Cyrus and Her Critics</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://meberumen.blogspot.com/2013/03/miley-cyrus-and-malibu-coming-of-age-in.html">Miley Cyrus and Malibu: Coming of Age in Art and Life</a></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-56765097715282174672013-03-15T23:34:00.000-07:002019-01-16T12:36:50.609-08:00Miley Cyrus and Malibu: Coming of Age in Art and Life<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Miley Ray Cyrus’ legion of fans, most of whom grew up with her and her music beginning with her Hannah Montana days, were not disappointed with her new single, “Malibu,” the precursor to her forthcoming album. It may seem strange that a somewhat respectable boomer in his dotage--one who in 1964 was at the Hollywood Bowl Beatles' concert when he was 12; the Monterey Pop Festival at 15 in 1967 with a cavalcade of 60s rock greats; who was living as a runaway hippie in a Haight-Ashbury flophouse and hanging out at Golden Gate Park for several months, watching the Airplane and Dead perform for free in the park; and someone who as a young adult was in the <i>Saturday Night Fever</i>-<i>Boogie Nights</i> disco era --would be commenting on Miley Cyrus’ work at all, let alone being a fan of hers. However, I expect more of my vintage will become just that as a result of her new music. As anyone who knows me would surely tell you, I love my old stuff from the halcyon days of unbridled youth, but I’m not -- and I never have been -- stuck in the past, and I keep up with current trends in several musical genres. There is a lot of great music today, not always from the biggest hit-makers, I hasten to add. Keeping up with the kids must mean I'm perpetually childish. But the young nearly always determine musical trends, so, I'm okay with that. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
I came to Miley Cyrus in a circuitous way. Of course, I had heard of her as the television phenom, Hannah Montana, and of her popularity among kids some years ago. My daughter is only a few years older than Miley. But I never paid serious attention until I read an article about her a couple of years ago -- (in the midst of her notoriety as pop's bad girl ... all very exaggerated) -- about celebrity generosity, and in which she was featured as being among the top in bounteousness among entertainers (in both time and money), and at the very top among teen and young adult stars. It impressed me. It was then that I did a little research via YouTube and iTunes and took a retrospective look at her music. I’ve been a fan and followed her ever since. Indeed, I've studied her music and I have read a fair amount about her, including the several post-Hannah controversies. I have written at length, elsewhere, about her musical evolution and talent, and a bit on her biography (<a href="http://meberumen.blogspot.com/2013/03/21st-century-rock-queen-miley-ray-cyrus.html">see here</a>), as well as a rejoinder to some of her critics (<a href="http://meberumen.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-vicissitudes-of-genius-miley-and.html">see here</a>), to which I’ll add a <i>coda</i> a bit later in this piece.<br />
<br />
In a word, I think Cyrus is one of the great pop-rock entertainers and artists of the modern era. My principal purpose in this piece, however, is to comment more specifically on her new song, “Malibu,” which was just released earlier today, and to do so with the knowledge that she hopes this will be a new beginning for her musically, and for her, personally, as well. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
To encapsulate, "Malibu" is surely a love song, but something more than that. It’s a highly personal, as have been other songs in her repertoire. The song is upbeat and happy, not plaintive or wrought with angst, and with some definite foot-tapping, torso moving, head bobbing back-beats. It's excellent driving music. It is lyrically simple and beautiful. Miley’s voice is in perfect form, and her Tennessee accent is audible, subtly so, and at not full-throttle in a Grand Ole Opry way. This is not one of her power ballads, or one where she blows the roof of with pipes that should only belong to someone twice her size, and there’s no “sitting on a cornflake” stuff as in <i>Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz </i> (much overlooked and containing some of her best written and my favorite pieces). It is nearly conversational in a kind of casual, sing-song, breezy sort of way, where she’s using her mid-to-upper middle range voice (she’s technically a mezzo soprano, though many characterize her as an alto). One can almost imagine her singing it to her lover as part of a conversation on a park bench. Her diction and tone are clear and distinct. There is a beautiful run, but no unnecessary warbling and trilling.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
The verse in "Malibu" tells a story. I suppose we can’t know its meaning for sure, that is, unless she tells us. She's told us a few things, and it is clear that it is autobiographical in nature. But I think most of it is pretty clear. I am not going to give a complete musical exegesis, but just highlight some of the main parts of the song, including a bit of armchair interpretation. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
The piece begins with a thank you to her lover for bringing her to live by the ocean in Malibu, where she has found this new solace and a renewed sense of freedom. I view Malibu as something of a metaphor. While she was from Tennessee and without much coastal beach experience, I suspect it could be anywhere that brings her comfort. The ocean and coastal environs obviously do.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
I never came to the beach or stood by the ocean</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
I never sat by the shore under the sun with my feet in the sand</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
But you brought me here and I'm happy that you did</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
'Cause now I'm as free as birds catching the wind</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
I always thought I would sink, so I never swam</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
I never went boatin', don't get how they are floatin'</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And sometimes I get so scared of what I can't understand</div>
<br />
One can imagine a pop star of her fame -- what with obnoxious paparazzi having followed her since her early teens; people hunting private pictures constantly; with expectations by everyone to be one thing or the other in order to satisfy an image they choose, rather than the freedom to be the person she is; and the pressures of 12 years (she’s only 24!) of constant celebrity, work, and criticism -- that it would cause many, especially a child or near child in her late teens and early twenties, to wither emotionally. And yes, there's even the pressure of adulation, and not living up to the manufactured image -- the problem of inner self-doubt about being deserving of it, something that has driven more than one famous person to therapy or worse. There's an admission in these lyrics of being frightened about what I take to be feelings or things about herself that she didn’t fully understand, emotions and worries that required her to run away and distance herself rather than risking failure. This, I suspect, entails some acting out in both life and on stage … not at all unexpected of most young people, <i>sans</i> the stage. She did it in both places. But in real life, from everything I've read from people who know her personally, never to excess or out of control, despite the reputation fueled by her stage antics and a lot of sanctimonious and often hypocritical moralizing by others. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
My interpretation … I thought I’d sink, i.e., fail … I never fully <i>committed </i>because <i>I didn’t understand</i> … and that scared me. But now she’s happy, and it’s due partly to him insofar as he is the object of her love, and he might have helped point her in a direction ((i.e., Malibu), but more than anything, because <i>she </i>has found herself, whom she wants to be, and what she wants to do. She found this in Malibu. I surmise a little about her personal relationship and its ups-and-downs, but this is an acknowledgement of not only reconciliation, but change making the very possibility of a reconciliation to occur. Malibu is the overarching metaphor for security and comfort and knowing herself. Peace with herself, which, and this isn't entirely unusual for a youngster, came with some struggle. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Then she gives the <i>raison d'être</i> for the song in the lyrics of the refrain. That through it all, notwithstanding the ups and downs of the past or even ones to come, it has come to this--and this is where and with whom she wants to be:</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
But here I am</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Next to you</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
The sky is more blue</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
In Malibu</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Next to you</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
In Malibu</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Next to you</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Then she shows her pure delight at just being with her lover, and that it is much more than just the physical attraction that usually begins a relationship, especially among the hormonally propelled young, but the thing people do for the <i>entirety</i> of a good and long-term relationship, namely, t<i>alk to one another</i>. And it makes clear she wants her current peace of mind and the relationship she now has to remain intact. The personal giveaway is that her lover, who in real life everyone knows is her fiance, the actor and surfing enthusiast, Liam Hemsworth, explains the ocean's current to her, something a surfer might understand, while she just smiles--and as anyone who has ever been in love knows, when your lover talks with enthusiasm about <i>anything</i>, whether or not it is something that would ordinarily interest you outside of that conversation, or even if you don’t understand it, you are simply delighted at the happiness he or she derives from telling <i>you</i>, for allowing you to share in their enthusiasm, because, quite simply, you are in love, and you can hang on every word ... not because of what is said, <i>but because of whose saying it</i>. Who in a romantic relationship has not given or received such a smile, as though what is being said by the one you love is the coolest thing on earth? She says: </div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
We watched the sun go down as we were walking</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
I'd spend the rest of my life just standing here talking</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
You would explain the current, as I just smile</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Hoping I just stay the same and nothing will change</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And it'll be us, just for a while</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Do we even exist?</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
That's when I make the wish</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
To swim away with the fish</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: left;">That’s the key. She doesn’t want it to end, she is in bliss, and she wants it to continue. It’s not just sex or romance, it’s more complete, more complex, less fleeting … it’s the yearning to be with someone you love forever, to swim away together, to be inextricably tied to one another, and for a moment of pure delight and bliss to last. One wonders, she says, could it even be real, do we exist, is it an imaginary thing, an illusion. If one reviews some of her music in the last three albums, particularly the last psychedelic experiment, one realizes she often speaks allegorically. A student of Miley's music can sometimes pick out the meaning because of knowing about her; but it is not always obvious even to those who follow her, and one must be left imagining, which is how it should be. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
The bottom line and conclusion of the piece is that is that she has found peace of mind in her love life, and greater happiness and security, overall, after some tumult--a sense that she can remain secure--and that having found this, it is a new beginning, a fresh start, leaving behind some things, by which I don't think she simply or only means an artistic style of this or that kind or antics on stage. I also think she means leaving things behind that were not good for her or for their relationship. And I think she means things that no longer seem relevant to her life. The last lines encapsulate the story: </div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
We are just like the waves that flow back and forth</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Sometimes I feel like I’m drowning and you’re there to save me</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And I wanna thank you with all my heart </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
It’s a brand new start</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
A dream come true </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
In Malibu</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: left;">The song involves an admixture of musical styles that speak to all of the main genres of Miley’s background, including country, pop-rock, techno-electronica, psychedelic, and yes, hip hop. I’ve heard others, including her father and Miley herself, say it that harkens back to her roots. Indeed it does; however, it also uses a</span><span style="text-align: left;">n amalgam of all of the styles that she’s used </span><span style="text-align: left;"> up through her </span><i style="text-align: left;">Petz</i><span style="text-align: left;"> period that serve to move her art forward. One hears hints of all of it. No doubt the multifaceted background of her brilliant musical producer, Oren Yoel, helped in this fusion. He played all of the instruments in the piece, I believe. A writer, engineer, and multi-instrumentalist, Yoel worked on several of her </span><i style="text-align: left;">Bangerz</i><span style="text-align: left;"> pieces, and he even co-wrote a couple of </span><i style="text-align: left;">Dead Petz</i><span style="text-align: left;"> pieces. He’s worked with a very diverse group, including hip-hop artists such as Kanye West and pop artists like Justin Bieber. He moves comfortably in every arena of the popular music world. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
There is at once a breezy aspect to the song, and a progressive, 4/4 driving back beat accompanied by a loud bass, and with a use of polyrhythms and syncopation that lends both rock and earlier African American, percussive jive overtones, possessing stronger movement accents on the off-beats. The traditional 4/4 beat this is found in modern rock, pop, and in hip-hop in one form or another. It is said by musical historians that the 2 4 emphasis in the back beat began in the Middle East with hand held percussion instruments such as the tambourine which produced the rhythmic mood and incentive to dance. Clapping (and this songs mimics it in places) might be its real origin. It traveled widely and was eventually incorporated to create jazz, blues, rhythm and blues, rock n roll, and hip-hop, along with some of the more driving and eclectic accents of percussion from the African tradition.<br />
<br />
There are country string elements, too, almost steel guitar garnishes, and there's some subtle electronica evincing some acid rock. But the overriding feel is still pop, with just enough back beat to call it pop-rock. Some find the combo of pop and rock disturbing. Rock purists (like many jazz and hip-hop purists) often seek to define themselves in a way that excludes things, as though their music ought to be in a gilded cage. It shouldn't, for rock, like hip-hop is and jazz was is just another form of popular music (as even Opera was), and in fact, many of the greatest rock artists did a considerable amount of what we might consider pure Britney Spears or Taylor Swift type pop, not least of all the most sainted rock gods of all: the Beatles.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
One of the prettiest parts of the song is the rising bridge of Miley singing “aaaahhhhh, aaaahhhhh” where she gives just a bitty taste of her range (it’s quite large, a four-octave range when she's on her game, much larger than most all of her peers), and, more than anything, it illustrates her vocal control in transitioning; however, it is not one of those annoying, show-offy runs popularized by a couple of 90s and early 00s divas, warbling and wobbling around every note to the point of annoyance. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
The entirety of the piece must put to rest the silliness and outrage by some that one has heard in the buildup to its release suggesting that Miley has abandoned hip-hop, and only now that she’s catapulted herself into super-stardom. This is wrong on several fronts. First, she was a superstar well before her several (not nearly as many as some seem to suppose) hip-hop songs in <i>Bangerz</i>. She could fill any stadium, and she was reputed to have some the largest ticket prices in the business on the aftermarket with her extraordinary popularity among her age cohort. Ask the parents who had to buy the tickets. Her stage and video antics that borrowed from hip-hop included much more: there was Madonna, Gaga, and acid-rock stuff going on, along with a good deal of subtle and not-so-subtle erotica that hardly belongs solely to hip hop. The more salacious aspects are nothing more than what kids see all the time on their ubiquitous devices, and nothing more outrageous than what Madonna and the Beastie Boys were doing decades before, both on stage and in real life. They also seem to forget that Miley left her <i>Bangerz </i>period almost immediately after her touring, then beginning her psychedelic and more introspective period, which was not seen as so controversial. This was also the time when she formed her charitable foundation. the Happy Hippie Foundation, for helping LGBTQ and underprivileged kids. While she had long contributed time and money to various causes, her foundation gave her a new focus and sense of purpose.<br />
<br />
What <i>really </i>created the controversy was her having said in her colorful way (saying there'd be no more riding cocks and such) that she was leaving behind misogyny, its attendant objectification of women, and bigotry, all of which are clearly found in aspects of hip-hop (and other, more traditionally "white" forms, too), and that she's doing so out of a sense of responsibility to others, along with a change in her own outlook and personal life. This was twisted as being a complete put down of hip-hop. It never was. And to suggest otherwise is tantamount to saying all of hip-hop is defined by these things, which it is not (despite what the great jazz artist Wynton Marsalis has suggested when he branded hip hop as minstrel-show entertainment). Miley said she was leaving those distasteful and now irrelevant (to her) elements behind, not discounting all of hip-hop, parts of which she continues to be informed by and admire.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Second, what great artist doesn’t borrow, expand, modify, and evolve over time, whether the classical greats Mozart and Beethoven; jazz geniuses Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis; the pop-rock giants Lennon and McCartney; or the hip-hop/rap artistry of Ice Cube and Kanye West. No genre of music exists without outside influences; and every genre is subject to being adapted by others or morphing into something new, much as old-school rap morphed into modern hip-hop. Music never has and never will remain static, and no culture can be said to "own" it, just as no culture remains pure without influence, or sacrosanct without change or without informing other cultures who borrow from it.<br />
<br />
What Cyrus said she abandoned was the objectification of women (where they are mere mindless automata intended to satisfy rather than persons and subjects, a difference many fail to comprehend) and the over-sexualization that attends it. What she wants to project in her music, at this point, is more happiness and love, she says, which is reflective of her life. Anyone who has studied her music and her performances, and who knows anything about her personal interactions with others, knows she is at once a complete empath, and she is constitutionally unable to disguise her feelings at the time they occur. In other words, her musical style is patterned on her life of the moment, the way she feels then. <i>That is called authenticity.</i> Much praised, little practiced. With that said, the fact remains that she has maintained all of her influences in various degrees, all of the elements are in this one piece, and she has abandoned nothing musically insofar as I can tell. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
To suggest, as some have said, that she has betrayed a culture is simply preposterous. She is accused of capitalizing on hip-hop iconography of living in the hood and such, which of course is a phony accusation given the fact that the majority of hip-hop artists today are hardly off the streets of Compton or former gang bangers, themselves, notwithstanding their tatted bodies and urban talk. And <i>any</i> artist that picks up a horn, a microphone, a guitar, or uses an electronic device, beats on a drum, uses language, or utters a lyric in iambic pentameter has borrowed something from another culture. She has done service to music more generally, and that is a tribute to the styles that she has incorporated, not a betrayal.<br />
<br />
There never was and still is not an unjust expropriation or exploitation: after all, this is the youngster who gives music away and forgoes millions in earnings for her fans (in addition to millions of her wealth and her time that she devotes to the unfortunate, much not seen by the cameras with appearances at hospitals, blood banks, and such--out of the limelight). No one has suffered from her actions, and many have benefited from them, including in the world of hip-hop with people she employed. Given some of the harsh comments she has endured, it is a testament to her strength of character and her fundamental kindness that she never stopped doing what she could to alleviate the pain of others. What she has done musically is fuse the best of her experiences and left behind the worst--or things that no longer represent her more mature, adult self. A self that now includes another consideration: someone she loves and aims to please.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Her video is simple and beautiful. It is not overproduced; full of highly-choreographed dancing; it uses special effects sparingly; and it has a cast of one, well, two, counting her dog. Miley is seen being what I suspect represents what Miley might actually be like in life outside of the publicity and media mill having to answer questions about her sexuality, drug use, and such… girlish, sweet, tastefully coquettish, and a little shy (don’t let her previous exhibitionism fool you—boldness on stage is merely cover for many performers); but comfortable in her own skin with just being herself. There are no fancy hairstyles or elaborate costumes. She is blessed with great natural beauty, and that is certainly an advantage in disposing of distractions; indeed, I think she is more beautiful today than ever before. There are balloons, beaches, grassy knolls, and a waterfall. While I won’t take anything away from several of her <i>Bangerz </i>videos, there can be little question that <i>this</i> is the style suits her best. The reason I say that is that Miley Cyrus is one of the very few artists who can get away with simplicity by virtue of her highly expressive countenance and communicative body language. She doesn’t just feel the music, the music feels her … and she is able to project her feelings through music in a way that few can without a lot of artifice or staging. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
I said I detect shyness in Miley that might come as a surprise others. Some of what she has done before, I suspect, is to counteract that. To illustrate, the whole sticking out the tongue business has become a set-piece and insignia, now something expected of her, but she once confessed it originated as a girl with the discomfort of being on display, of being unsure of herself, a certain awkwardness (hardly uncommon with a teenager), of being constantly photographed and not knowing what to do. I picked up a definite sense of insecurity and a feeling of social awkwardness in some tellingly autobiographical lyrics in <i>Petz. </i>Maybe I’m over-reading things.<br />
<br />
I must add, this song was written in the car (she wasn't driving -- thankfully, she used an Uber driver) on the way to her gig as a coach on The Voice. If I spent ten years on it, I could not come up with such a pretty piece, let alone in jotting it down while commuting to work.<br />
<br />
Do I think Miley has conducted herself perfectly. Of course not. Who has? She is a normal person, aside from her artistic gifts--a normal girl and young woman, except she grew up before everyone with a kind of pressure that most of us will never have to experience. She made some mistakes, of course, none of them serious. But she knows that, and her critics are intent on characterizing her by them. They were minor. The fact is, Miley Ray Cyrus, while not perfect, is about as decent a person as one will find. Her generosity towards others speaks for itself. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Here’s my overall assessment. "Malibu" is a beautifully constructed love song: lyrically, vocally, and instrumentally. Visually, it is Miley at her very best: being herself, naturally, and without a lot of trappings (to see more of that style, see her <i>Happy Hippie</i> backyard performances and some of her more intimate concert work, or her live BBC radio sessions). I think this will be the piece that will cause older folk to notice Miley’s vocal chops. Miley is 24. She’s been around a while, so people sometimes lose sight of just how young she is. This is better work than many very famous artists were doing at that age, including several at the forefront of the music scene today.<br />
<br />
To put it in language Boomers and rock music history buffs might understand well, she’s gone beyond the "I Want to Hold Your Hand" teenager stuff … though it was all clever, well sung, and age-appropriate. This, then, is her <i>Revolver</i> period, one where all of her experiences come together and her music turns completely adult. And as the Beatles had George Martin, she’s had some help along the way, too, among others and not least of all, her music manager and drummer, Stacy Jones; producers Mike Will, Dr. Luke, and Oren Yoel; and the Flaming Lips' Wayne Coyne. But Cyrus is the central artist and driving force, the prism that bends the light, the weaver of the musical threads, and without whose genius it could not be done. Her <i>Sgt. Pepper </i>and the <i>White Album </i>phase has yet to come, but I suspect it will be much sooner than later. Miley Ray Cyrus is a force of nature, an entertainment genius, and no ordinary pop-rock singer destined to flame out anytime soon. Mark my words.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://meberumen.blogspot.com/2013/03/21st-century-rock-queen-miley-ray-cyrus.html">Link to my artistic analysis and bio of Miley.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://meberumen.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-vicissitudes-of-genius-miley-and.html">Rejoinder to criticism of Miley. </a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.happyhippies.org/">Miley's Happy Hippie Foundation</a><br />
<br />
MB 5-11-17</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-61240231184298310512013-03-15T20:29:00.000-07:002017-10-04T12:38:08.894-07:00The Vicissitudes of Genius: Miley and her Critics<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" hspace="0" vspace="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left" style="padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;" valign="top"><div style="line-height: 46.55pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-element-anchor-horizontal: column; mso-element-anchor-vertical: paragraph; mso-element-linespan: 3; mso-element-wrap: around; mso-element: dropcap-dropped; mso-height-rule: exactly; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; page-break-after: avoid; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-size: 63pt;">M<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">iley Cyrus just announced that she will soon release new music,
something her many millions of fans have been itching to have for several
years. In my judgment, she is the most gifted young pop-rock artist of the
modern era, and I have already said why I believe that this is the case at some
length, <a href="http://meberumen.blogspot.com/2013/03/21st-century-rock-queen-miley-ray-cyrus.html">here</a>.
Now, there is no universal, objective standard of reference for judging
music. Conceptions of aesthetic quality are intrinsically subjective, and at
best they are measurable only within a particular musical-inertial frame of
reference, primarily a cultural one, often writ large. But unlike a matter of
physics or mathematics, that cannot be judged against an objective standard to
assess its quality. With that said, Miley is my personal favorite among the
current pop-rock artists for the reasons I have adduced elsewhere (Some purist
wags have said, "oh, she's not really rock." Nonsense, they haven't
listened to <i>all </i>she's done if they say that ... and I've seen
nearly every great rock band and artist since the Beatles.).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I should like to address and
focus on the recent contretemps regarding her interview with <i>Billboard</i>, <a href="http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/magazine-feature/7783997/miley-cyrus-cover-story-new-music-malibu">here</a>,
wherein she distanced herself from elements of hip-hop, specifically, the more
misogynistic and sexually gratuitous parts. This created a minor firestorm in
cyberspace and twitterdom. It was obviously not possible for her to deliver a
complete disquisition in a brief interview for a magazine, and it is impossible
to capture the entire context of what was being asked and said, and to capture
the complete intention behind what is said in such a piece. Miley is an artist,
anyway, and not auditioning for the State Department. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Not long ago, when she
incorporated elements of hip-hop (and electronica and much else, I’d should
add) in her <i>Bangerz </i>album, she was unfairly criticized by some
for trying to be black and for exploiting black culture in order to shed her
Disneyfied image. All manner of outrage was evinced by moral scolds who clung
to her erstwhile Disney image, and then there were the other moral scolds who
saw her as a poseur</span><b><span style="color: #6a6a6a; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span></b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">qua
inauthentic interloper in black culture. And it usually involved a great deal
of slut and woman shaming by both sides (oh yes, some of her would-be
"informed" hip-hop critics were saying some pretty nasty things about
her twerking abilities not being up to par, and even worse). Plus she was
said to be using African Americans as mere props in her staging, as though they
were there unwillingly and without pay, in effect shaming them as mere tools as
opposed to knowing artists in their own right. And now, she is being criticized
for abandoning hip-hop and blackness, only when it is convenient, and only now
that Disney is well behind her. This is all nonsense. And to no small degree,
there are hints of racism and sexism implicit in much of the criticism that is
thrown her way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">First, let’s get one thing
straight. No one person or culture “owns” music. And there is no form of
popular music, including its various iterations, marching band, ragtime, blues,
jazz, rhythm and blues, pop, rockabilly, rock, folk, soul, funk, hip-hop,
country, bluegrass, electronica, variations thereof, etc. … or classical music,
for that matter, which does not borrow from other genres as it moves through
time. None of it can be said to be pure, standing alone in a bubble, as though
it sprung fully-formed from the head of Zeus. It is preposterous to suggest
that music has been invented by any culture extant out of whole cloth. Many
cultures, sub-cultures, and ethnic groups from diverse parts of the world have
participated in the formation of major musical movements. It would be absurd to
suggest that Mahalia Jackson’s magnificent rendition of “Amazing Grace,”
written by an English clergyman (and penitent former slave trader) in the 18th
century, was co-opting Anglo-Saxon culture, or to suggest that late in life
when she sang some pop and rock tunes it amounted to a betrayal of the African
American gospel tradition. The former added luster to the latter, in fact.
Similarly, the brilliant Wynton Marsalis did not betray black culture by
playing Bach … or forsake Bach by playing Duke Ellington. He does both, and he
does them very well. But when Miley sheds her fifteen-year old self (and
a very talented one, at that), adopts some modern popular forms (first
pop-rock, then incorporating hip-hop and electronica), and then moves again
into some older territory (psychedelic) in a new way, then yet again into some
new form (she’s telegraphing that it is, at least) that we are told subtly
evokes her roots, she is criticized by multiple audiences (a minority in
numbers, grant you, but a disproportionately vocal one) for not sticking
to <i>what they like</i> … this, when some of the very same people
criticized her for entering into those musical arenas in the first place.
Speaking of hypocrisy. I'm sorry, but culture and attendant musical forms are
not sacrosanct possessions of a chosen few, and they do not themselves stand
alone without other influences.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Second, yes, I know there have
been and there will be more cries of her not understanding hip-hop culture. As
though all successful hip-hop artists grew up in the hood in places like
Compton. I’ve read many tweets suggesting “she never really was hip-hop, we
told you so,” etc., or that she was merely using it as a crass utilitarian, and
then all along planning to abandon it when convenient. Well, none other than
Drake, a fan of hers, supported Miley in her efforts to incorporate aspects of
hip-hop in her music and stage act. It is simply not true that she is
abandoning hip-hop in the sense that its influence on her has been lost or
unappreciated. Moreover, it is rank hypocrisy to suggest, as some have, that
she "exploited" black culture for her own gain. Precisely what are
other commercial hip hop artists doing, including African American ones? When
they pick up a trumpet or use sampling of a white boy band, are they exploiting
white culture? It is all quite ridiculous. Art is to be shown, displayed,
imitated, adapted, and improved upon. And cultures move along similar paths.
And I seriously doubt Miley at 20 had a master plan in mind on the
trajectory of her musical style for the purpose of commerce. This is the woman
who gave her last album away for free, after all ... which she could have made
millions from ... so she is hardly as commercially driven as some. What is
more, she did not suggest she was forsaking hip-hop, and she amplified her
position further, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BTvUhAYBU2n/">here</a>,
in her rejoinder to some of the outcry. That will not satisfy the
sanctimonious, of course; but thoughtful people can see she is attempting to do
some good. Fact is, she has done a lot of good, and not simply in music.
Would that her critics give as much in time and money to those suffering
privation as Miley has done. The evidence is abundantly clear that she is
hardly single-minded and driven by commercial success.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I don’t think a musical artist
“owes” to any particular musical form hidebound allegiance, any more than a
painter ought never adopt new ways of expression. But a shift in style often
results in criticism. Picasso, for example, experienced many such complaints, for
he changed his style substantially at least nine times in his lifetime. It is
unlikely that any change completely walls off prior artistic influences. The
early Rolling Stones started out as a blues band, primarily; and the blues
remains evident in much of their later rock repertoire. Should we criticize the
Stones for exploiting blues only to turn to Rock? (Side note: some of the blues
greats, such as Johnny Lee Hooker, were grateful to the Stones, among others,
for bringing more widespread awareness to the blues musical form via rock. Art
takes from other art naturally, and it continues to morph into something
new.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Third, Miley is being accused
of hypocrisy because she used overt sexuality in some of her music and in her
stagecraft, and is now distancing herself from it. Some critics are unable to
forgive her for no longer being virginal, perpetually pubescent Hannah Montana,
while others are saying that she basically shouldn’t change from the aforesaid
period of hyper-sexuality, for to do so is to abandon hip-hop or black culture
and thereby to make a mockery of it. There is an apparent lack of
self-awareness on the part of these critics, for that defines hip-hop and black
culture very narrowly and, I should add, in a manner that is very much a
mockery and also inaccurate. Look, a whole lot of music is about sex, whether
done so subtly or more blatantly and in one’s face. Miley was 20-22 years old
in this period, for Heaven’s sake! Do you remember being 20-22 years old? What
is more, hip-hop is not <i>all</i> about misogyny, and she never
averred that it was. That is an utter misrepresentation. She said she was going
to do some new things and distance herself from an aspect of her music that she
came to believe was inappropriate, and that she has become aware of her power
as a role model for young girls. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">One of the things overlooked in
the criticism of Miley's earlier sexual antics on stage is the degree to which
she and many very young women (in her case as a young teenager) are sexualized
with adult dress, hair, and makeup. There is an entire culture and industry
that facilitates the objectification of women. Miley Cyrus as a very young
adult did some acting out on stage. But one must remember that there is a large
segment of society that approves of it in more subtle forms, and then gets all
hot and bothered when it materializes in modalities that they don't like. There
is a great deal of hypocrisy in all of this.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Hip-hop's admirers (and I am
one) must own the simple unadulterated fact that parts of hip-hop/rap are
indeed quite misogynistic. The same also could be said of many songs of the
sixties through the eighties by white-boy guitar bands, where women were very
much objectified, or in country music. It’s hardly a black or white thing, or
confined to one genre of music. The point is, it does not define hip-hop, and I
must also point out, hip hop does not define the rich and diverse African
American culture, and Miley did not suggest either of these things. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Notwithstanding all of this,
Miley is maturing, evolving, and understanding that the things that she does
artistically--because of her large international fan base and her influence
over young people--can have untoward or positive and salubrious effects on
others. She is choosing to do the latter. She wants to distance herself from
those things that might have negative repercussions, particularly, at least as
I understand her, those things that might feed into making girls into sex
objects, which is to say, objects of pleasure wholly divorced of their
personhood (nothing wrong with sex, to be sure … but <i>not</i> when
it becomes the defining characteristic of another person's purpose), whether in
the minds of young men or young women. She is not denying or abdicating
responsibility for her own peripheral participation (though I think to the
extent it is negative and present in her work, its impact is nominal and
exaggerated by her critics); she is saying she is going to do something
different in the future. That strikes me as a responsible, adult attitude, one
that is to be lauded, not condemned. Yes, Miley has changed. Who among us can
say they haven't? She’s 24! One would hope so, much as one might hope
that we all do, and for the better---and one also would hope her brilliant
artistry will continue to evolve, notwithstanding the critiques of haters, the
misinformed, the envious, and the assorted mediocrities that are always nipping
at the heels of artistic genius. They will be forgotten. One can be very
certain that Miley Cyrus <i>will not.</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
MB 5-6-17<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-90164263075708590922013-03-15T15:15:00.000-07:002018-10-09T12:19:45.525-07:00Trump and Trumpism: American Fascism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<b>I
was watching a CNN program where a wag was describing Trumpism as populism, and
then giving cover to Trump’s followers as aggrieved people motivated by
legitimate concerns. It motivated me to write this open polemic to friends, some
of whom confuse voting their conscience with principle. The two can be separable. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>[This was written shortly after the Republican Convention in August of 2016, well before Trump was elected to the presidency.] <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To my Friends of the Right, Left, and Center:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It has been over year, now, since I first went on record and
predicted that Donald Trump would become a major political force and the eventual
nominee of the Republican Party. Many of my friends at the time thought I had
lost my mental bearings.<i> </i>I have not
in the meantime changed my mind about either Trump or Trumpism. It would appear
that he will lose the US election, although that is far from certain, and I
won't rest easy until he does. And that ease will doubtless be short-lived, for
I am less than enthusiastic about the alternative, Hillary Clinton,
though I much prefer her over Trump. I did not view Sanders as a good alternative, for he suffers from a kind of narcissism, like Trump, though I'd surely vote for him over Trump. I also am very worried about the fact that even if he loses, Trump will have come very close, and that speaks to an ominous undercurrent in the
US that is at once large and powerful, and one that will remain with us for the
foreseeable future. It is a clear and present danger to the nation and, hence, it represents a
danger to the world. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I was young, it was a commonplace on the political left
to brand our rightist opponents as <i>Fascists</i>. More often than not, it was used
as a facile pejorative, and without much real thought to the lexical or historical
meaning of the word. We knew it was bad, representing things that we eschewed, and
to identify the opposing right with brutal authoritarian regimes seemed
appropriate enough to us, and why not the worst kind. The appellation was overused and often used inaccurately.
It thereby lost much of its significance, and even today, when it is used appropriately, it is sometimes characterized as hackneyed. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In more recent years, it has not been uncommon even to hear
rightists use the term to brand leftist thought or activists. Bill O'Reilly,
the loudmouthed, bully-broadcaster on Fox News, is guilty of this kind of abuse
... to cite just one recent example, he called David Silverman, the leader of
an American atheist group, as being <i>fascistic</i> for his steadfast positions against
organized religion and his support of separation between church and state. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In some quarters, Trump, now the Republican candidate for
President, has been called a <i>Fascist</i> or someone who supports
fascistic beliefs. Others reject this, branding him as a mere populist or
garden-variety authoritarian, because, after all, the unlettered and historically ignorant Trump would not even be able to define <i>Fascism</i>. Therefore, how could he be one? And his followers, they would have us believe,
are just gullible innocents oppressed by their circumstances and victimized,
beguiled by a demagogue, and held hostage by his hateful rhetoric. I believe this is complete nonsense<i>, </i>I should like to posit that Trumpism
is indeed closely linked to the ideas of historical <i>Fascism</i>; that Trump himself has all of the essential qualities of a
<i>Fascist</i> leader; and what is more, that his partisans, wittingly or unwittingly,
are a part of a <i>fascistic</i> movement. It does not matter that they do not know
the etymology or the history of <i>Fascism</i>.
They in fact support many of its main ideas, and for all practical purposes, they are therefore,
themselves, <i>Fascists</i>. Much like the millions of Germans who denied they were
Nazis because they were not card-carrying members of the Party, we can no
longer allow this distinction without a difference (i.e., I support Trump and
Trumpism, but I am not a <i>Fascist</i>) to be swept under the rug and ignored as it
often has been. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Contrary to a now common description, Trumpism is not simply
a form of populism, although it shares some of its characteristics. Some
liberals, especially in the political, academic, and pundit classes, are
seriously guilty of whitewashing and, thereby, diminishing Trumpism's insidious
character by referring to it as populism, and then by qualifying it further by
speaking of the several grievances of its largely white, male, constituency. It enables them to evince
sympathy for the perceived legitimate complaints and anger of the (supposed) underclass,
while remaining critical of Trump himself, essentially offering excuses for the
reprehensible behavior ... hate, violent overtones, jingoism, racism, and
misogyny ... of his supporters. Always looking for sociological explanations
for their fellow man's depravity, liberals' abiding sense of fairness and
care for the downtrodden (who themselves could care less about the liberals
or their views) can sometimes obscure their perceptions of the reality of
venal, evil forces. This was true in the 1930s, and it is just as true now. Rational people on the right and the left at the time completely misunderstood what Hitler understood very well, namely, that much of politics is not a rational calculation and there is a dark underside of human nature that can be exploited, especially when one can dehumanize someone seen as responsible for one's real or imagined privations. One consequence of this rationalism is a tolerance of the intolerable by distancing his supporters from
Trump, himself, and from Trumpism<i>, </i>I
think this is a mistake, and, often enough, even disingenuous and cynical, as
though they represent potential voters for the "proper" side, which is to say, the liberal side, and thus we cannot afford to alienate
them<i>, </i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fact is that Trump's followers' views <i>are</i> deplorable, much as his opponent Hillary Clinton said, and Trump is the catalyst and lens for refracting their vile beliefs<i>, </i>Trumpism would not be possible without
them. It matters not that some may even be our friends or relations, making an
exception only for the mentally incompetent. Liberals and conservatives both
need to call a spade a shovel and stop excusing the inexcusable. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Populism has taken various forms on the political right and
left in different times and parts of the globe. It has a long history, at least
dating back to Pericles in Athens and Julius Caesar in Rome<i>, </i>Broadly speaking, in modern times, populism is a political
movement that centers on economic grievances, primarily, though not
exclusively, by workers, the less affluent merchant class, and farmers, against
the economic, social, and intellectual elites who are perceived as the causes
of their privations. Andrew Jackson might well be the best example of an early
populist leader in the US, and to date, the only truly populist president. The
Populist Party of the 1890s consisted of farmers and some labor unions that
denounced a system, whereby, in the words of David M. Kennedy and Lizabeth
Cohen’s <i>American Pageant</i> (2005), “the fruits of the toil of millions are
boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few." One of the great
populist leaders of this era into the early 20th century was Williams Jennings
Bryan, a charismatic, religious orator and sometimes presidential candidate who
railed against capitalist elites, as exemplified by his famous "Cross of
Gold" speech. Huey P. Long, Sr., "The Kingfish," a governor and
senator from Louisiana, led a populist movement in the Great Depression, and,
had he not been killed in 1935, he might well have become president. Populism regained currency,
again, in the 1950s. The historian Richard Hofstadter and sociologist Daniel
Bell compared the anti-elitism and populism of the late 19th century with that
of Joseph McCarthy's grievances against communism and American power elites<i>, </i>In the late sixties and early
seventies, George Wallace led a third-party, populist movement that centered on
race segregation<i>, </i>And the modern Tea
Party has many elements of populism with its focus on white, male grievances
with racial and anti-immigrant overtones. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bernie Sanders' candidacy also capitalized on some populist
sentiments against the elites, with much emphasis on the real and imagined
burdens of white youth and the various real and imagined malefactions of the
wealthy, and it is therefore not altogether surprising, after his primary loss,
that there has been a small number of converts to Trumpism--and there are
some sentiments or grievances that are similar ... or if not out-and-out
converts, there are people who rationalize (mistakenly, I believe) that Trump
could be no worse than the alternative. This is a delusion, and a false sense of principle, when it is actually the opposite of principle, for he is much worse. He is a fascist. Sanders is not. Politics is a practical affair, and principle can get in the way of principle, which is to say, when the ideal has little or no chance of succeeding, the next best thing, or the least worse thing, anyway, should prevail. Al Gore lost the presidency resulting in a war that still has not ended, among other things, due in part to the ideological narcissism of people voting for Ralph Nader, another narcissist, notwithstanding his historical importance to consumers. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To no small degree, the Tea Party movement was a precursor
of Trumpism, and it cannot be denied that <i>Fascism</i>
and Trumpism have characteristics of populism, and particularly in the sense
that people are rallied against others who are seen as the root cause of their
various misfortunes<i>. </i>But there are
also some significant differences between populism and Trumpism. None of the
aforementioned populist movements were truly fascistic in nature. However, Trumpism is
different. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I hasten to state that <i>Fascism</i> is not a systematic doctrine, it is difficult to
characterize, and there is considerable debate to this day as to what
constitutes true <i>Fascism</i>. It is not an internally consistent doctrine built on a few principles such as one might find in socialist or free market doctrines, or in more traditional forms of authoritarian or totalitarian systems In many
ways, it is incoherent as an ideology, and it consists of an admixture of ideas sometimes even
in opposition to one another. It is best, I think, to look at some general
characteristics that its several strands possess, but as much as anything, also
to consider the actual behaviors of its leaders and followers from a historical
perspective. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Fascism</i> has many
fathers in terms of its origins and evolution; but in terms of what I'll call
European "movement"<i> Fascism</i>, a
phenomenon that reached its apotheosis with Hitler and Mussolini, it is
principally rooted in <i>fin de siècle</i>
Italian, German, and French political thought, and as an offshoot of various
Italian and German social movements, but particularly in Italian syndicalism
and pan-German nationalism<i>, </i>Among the
most influential thinkers were Georges Sorel, Enrico Corradini, Georg von
Schönerer, Wilhelm Riehl, Oswald Spengler, and Filippo Tommaso Marinetti. There
are others, but most influential of all, that is, prior to Adolf Hitler––was
Benito Mussolini, himself, who catalyzed the views of various thinkers into a
well-organized political movement<i>, </i>Hitler,
of course, took it to another level, and, in the process, he nearly led the
world into the abyss. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is a myth that Trump resembles Mussolini as a person.
It is often repeated, but said by people who obviously know nothing of
Mussolini beyond the swaggering character that they see in old newsreels<i>, </i>Perhaps in his exaggerated attempts at
<i>machismo</i> this is true, but it really
ends there<i>, </i>Mussolini was a learned
and well-rounded man, he had an advanced degree and wrote learned papers, including
one on Machiavelli's <i>Prince. </i>He spoke several languages ... and he was a gifted orator with cogent syntax,
the latter being a great distinction from Trump, who has the vocabulary of a grammar school student<i>, </i> In contrast, Adolf
Hitler's learning was eclectic<i>, </i>Aside
from being a brilliant orator and dramatist, perhaps only equaled by Winston Churchill
in recent times, Hitler was naturally bright and retentive. He also was a
gifted street psychologist, a master of branding, use of media, and marketing,
much as Trump is; however, from his youth, and also like Trump, he was
intellectually lazy, and uninterested in systematic learning or scholarship.
His venue was the coffee house and beer hall, not the library, much as Trump’s
is television. While both have remarkable powers of intuition, especially into the darker sides of human nature, it is patently clear that Hitler was the brighter of the two. What is more, unlike Trump, Hitler was exceptionally disciplined in
managing his public persona, in control of his political machinations ...
exposing himself only very carefully ... and very rigorous in conducting his
personal relations<i>. </i>Trump is much more impulsive and reckless. The personality
comparisons are not what are important about Trump ... for there are not many,
really, and they are at best quite superficial. With that said, to therefore suggest that he could not be a Fascist because he is unlike Mussolini or Hitler, is specious. Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh were both communists, but they were completely different as people. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what is <i>Fascism</i>? First of all, let's nip one common
misunderstanding in the bud<i>, </i>It is
does not fit in the traditional categories of right and left, which is not the
way the self-styled intellectuals representing either ideological extreme would
like to have it, believing <i>Fascism</i> to
be the ideology of the other side, and which partly explains why it can appeal
to erstwhile members of both ends of the political spectrum<i>, </i>It is nearly always presented by academics as a species of far
right-wing politics ... but that is overly simplistic ... it is much more
complicated than that. No less than an authority than Hitler himself thought
Nazism, a species of <i>Fascism</i>,
transcended left and right, borrowed from both, and was what he called
"syncretic,” In the broadest terms, here are ten characteristics one will
find in the three previously successful, large-scale fascistic movements in
Europe. Taken individually each attribute may be found in other kinds of
movements. But taken as a whole, in combination, I believe they typify <i>Fascism</i>. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
1. <i>Fascism</i> is a form of hyper-nationalism that capitalizes on two
principal things ... one, strong patriotic feelings, often founded on a
mythical past that never occured, and two, the vilification of groups seen as
sullying the nation and detrimental to the national interest, often represented
by an ethnic or religious group, modernism, cosmopolitan elites, and outsiders
more generally. ["Make America Great AGAIN."] [I am putting America
first.] ["I think the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because
laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything
they can control."] (...just to name three of many--but more to follow
illustrating the same point.)<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
2. While there certainly are
elements of anti-elitist populism, <i>Fascism</i>
also seeks to co-opt people in power, for power is its ultimate objective, and
because it is more than willing to use utilitarian means to attain its ends, it
will curry favor with economic, political, and intellectual elites wherever and
whenever it can to secure it. [Simply look at GOP leaders and moneyed donors
who previously denounced Trump, and the latter’s wiliness to use all the tools
at his disposal of the elites his followers decry, e.g., the media.]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
3. <i>Fascism</i> freely borrows from both socialist and capitalist doctrines
... for power is its goal ... and there is not a systematic economic doctrine
other than that which is seen as necessary to attain power and to benefit the
state, co-opting whatever economic power or centers of influence are necessary to
attain those ends, whether through markets, corporate interests, or popular
measures with the masses ... so it is perhaps no coincidence that Mussolini was
once a socialist involved in the labor movement (which he would destroy), and
that Nazism had a vibrant socialist wing in its earlier years ... one
eventually quashed (the Night of the Long Knives) by the mid-thirties and
replaced by a kind of quasi-capitalism, an economic system best described as
state corporatism. ["Well, the first thing you do is don't let the jobs
leave. The companies are leaving. I could name, I mean, there are thousands of
them. They're leaving, and they're leaving in bigger numbers than ever. And
what you do is you say, fine, you want to go to Mexico or some other country,
good luck. We wish you a lot of luck. But if you think you're going to make
your air conditioners or your cars or your cookies or whatever you make and
bring them into our country without a tax, you're wrong."] [From Trump's
chief economic adviser, Steve Moore: "Capitalism is a lot more important
than democracy. I’m not even a big believer in democracy."]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
4. Conspiratorial and exclusionary
thinking about groups and forces aligned against the movement is part and
parcel to all fascistic movements, and plays a central role in the rallying
cries of its leaders, whether the bogeyman is international Jewry, a particular
ethnic group, the bourgeoisie, large corporate interests, liberal elites,
Bolsheviks, or the media. [On Mexican immigrants: "They're bringing
drugs,' crime and are 'rapists'."]["I’ve been treated very unfairly
by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage. I'm building a wall, OK?
I'm building a wall.] [I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling
down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands
of people (ed: that is, Arabs) were cheering as that building was coming down.
Thousands of people were cheering."] ["Donald J. Trump is calling for
a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our
country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew
Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large
segments of the Muslim population."] ["On The Wall Street Journal:
'They better be careful or I will unleash big time on them."]["We won
with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated."]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
5. When out of power, fascistic
movements always declaim against the legitimacy of those in power as usurpers
who, through their machinations, rig outcomes and are not the true
representatives of the people or the nation. Already, a potential loss is being
declared as a result of voter fraud and media rigging. Hints at violence as a consequence
are not uncommon<i>, </i>["I think you'd
have riots. I think you'd have riots. I'm representing many, many millions of
people. In many cases first-time voters ... If you disenfranchise those people?
And you say, well, I'm sorry, you're 100 votes short, even though the next one
is 500 votes short? I think you'd have problems like you've never seen before.
I wouldn't lead it, but I think bad things will happen".]["Polls
close, but can you believe I lost large numbers of women voters based on made
up events THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Media rigging election!"] ["Election
is being rigged by the media, in a coordinated effort with the Clinton
campaign, by putting stories that never happened into news!"]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
6<i>,
</i>Every successful fascistic movement has been led by a charismatic and often
bombastic demagogue who is seen as and who claims to be the embodiment of the
nation, the vessel of the national will, and as the exceptional person--one
without whom the nation cannot prosper or survive. The state and its leaders
effectively become one<i>, </i>["I will
be the greatest jobs president that God ever created."] [After delineating
the ills of the nation: "I am your voice. I alone can fix it."]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
7. Fascistic movements view violence
as a just means of achieving its ends, whether outside of or through the state,
and law and order are common code words. Calls for violence or hints of violent
recourse against opponents are common. There is often an exaggerated,
hyper-masculinity on parade, with glorification of toughness and strength and
power. There is a display of an authoritarian bearing, and the leader’s followers
are admirers of it. ["When somebody challenges you, fight back. Be brutal,
be tough."] ["When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers
with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they
shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water."] ["If
she gets to pick her judges – nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second
Amendment people. Maybe there is. I don’t know."] ["Why can’t we use
nuclear weapons."] ["You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a
couple of those speakers so hard. I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to
hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected
governor."]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
8. Despite the popular appeals to
"law and order," a trope of authoritarianism more generally, the
fascistic conception of law lies outside of any legislative or judicial
proceedings or the kinds of protections or due process enshrined by a
constitutional authority. Often the law is construed as that which us willed by
the individual or individuals in power. ['It is a disgrace. It is a rigged system.
I had a rigged system, except we won by so much. This court system, the judges
in this court system, federal court. They ought to look into Judge Curiel
because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace. Ok? But we will come
back in November.'] ["The problem is we have the Geneva Conventions, all
sorts of rules and regulations, so the soldiers are afraid to fight."] [On
telling generals to violate the Geneva Conventions, US Constitution, and the
Uniform Military Code of Justice: "They won’t refuse. They’re not gonna
refuse me. Believe me. I’m a leader; I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had
any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it."]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
9<i>,
</i>A common attribute of fascistic movements is the creation of alternate
realities, often with an adamant and repetitive disregard for the truth, even
in the face of abundant veridical evidence to the contrary, especially when it
serves the ends of the partisans or when said evidence conflicts with doctrine.
['An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that Barack
Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.'] [(On unemployment: 'I've seen numbers
of 24 percent — I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two
percent. 5.3 percent unemployment -- that is the biggest joke there is in this
country. … The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you,
you have some great economists that will tell you it's a 30, 32. And the
highest I've heard so far is 42 percent.']<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
10. Symbolism is often an important
aspect of <i>Fascism</i>, especially
patriotic symbols that evoke feelings of group identity. The Nazis, in
particular, made effective use of this. [An example, one of many, would be
Donald Trump Jr.'s tweeted picture with the Trumps next to a green frog, a
common alt-right/anti-Semitic and racist symbol<i>, </i>Of course, all the standard patriotic regalia and lighting and
music are part and parcel to the Trump campaign, as it is with every campaign;
but there are insidious instances of using other racist and anti-Semitic memes
and symbols.]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The foregoing is by no means exhaustive, but I believe it captures
the essentials, and though right and left populist movements might share in
some of these characteristics in various times and places, when taken as a
whole, I think they are substantively different<i>, </i>I have bracketed just a small sample of statements by Trump
himself, or gave some examples myself, simply to illustrate and encapsulate
some of the reasons why I think he meets these ten criteria. The amount of
additional evidence of his unsuitability and utter venality as a human being is simply overwhelming. These are all in addition to his
hateful statements towards the disabled and women, an admission to committing
physical assault, and to being a sexual predator. Not to mention his repeated failure to adhere to contracts with vendors; discriminatory practices as a landlord; and his use of racist tropes (e.g., birtherism). Then there are Trump’s threats
to prosecute and jail his opponent, Hillary Clinton, if he wins, or, if he
loses, to not recognize the results of the election. The latter are among the
hallmarks of authoritarian strongmen and regimes everywhere. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While I think <i>Fascism</i>
and what it conveys is an important descriptor, and one worth preserving and
using when it fits, I will readily admit its overuse has diminished its force
and gravity. Moreover, it seems to many to be a dead doctrine, one now buried
in the historical dustbin. It isn't. Setting that aside, though, the fact
remains that the ascendancy of Trump and his craven Republican converts
represent the most dangerous political phenomena in the US in the modern era. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The only silver lining is potential that an intellectually
and morally responsible center-right party will rise from the ashes, and the
apparent destruction of the modern Republican Party, a party transformed
(historical irony, here!) by the white flight of the post-Confederate Democrats
after the Civil Rights legislation of the mid-Sixties, and an unholy alliance
between corporate welfarests and assorted disaffected racists, white
Evangelicals, and white workers, a coalition cobbled together by Nixon and
Reagan (the so-called silent and moral majorities, respectively), with the help
of considerable gerrymandering at the congressional level, courtesy of the
likes of Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove. And all the while, the more rational establishment is winking at
the crass incitements of the unlettered by the Breitbarts, Limbaughs, Hannitys and O'Reillys of the
world, believing at the end a rational man can be inserted (e.g., a McCain or a Romney), whilst the rabble are returned to their guns and religion. I strongly
suspect both Nixon and Reagan would be appalled by the Frankenstein monster
they helped to create--culminating in a hydra-headed amalgam of the Old
Confederacy, Palinism, and Trumpism. It is no longer the party of Javits,
Dirksen, Eisenhower, or T.R. (who left the party, despite today's ahistorical Republican hagiography of TR), let alone the party of Lincoln<i>, </i>Today it is the party of the ultimate
vulgarian, Donald Trump. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Even with Trump's probable (though I hasten to add, again, uncertain!) defeat, I worry about the
possibility of violence, an intractable divide in our population, an impotent
executive with a recalcitrant congress (that already lies in wait to foil her
and perhaps even to impeach her), and an unstable world with dictators,
fanatics, and jingoists run amok, some considerable amount of which is of the
United State's own making. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am not a fan of either Bill or Hilary Clinton<i>, </i>I have not had a choice that I
thoroughly liked since George McGovern in the general election of 1972<i>, </i>But I do not doubt Hillary's
intellectual or emotional <i>bona fides</i>, and I do believe that she believes in
many of the same things that are most important to me (and most of my friends),
not least of all, the rule of law, principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights,
equality under the law, and a societal obligation to care for the least among
us. She is more belligerent and hawkish than I would like; but she is also a
quick study and learns from her mistakes<i>,
</i>Perhaps she will have learned more about the unintended consequences of
military interventions that are not in our strategic interests. I eschew her lawyerly-like
triangulation and prevarications, a quality she shares with her husband; but these
are certainly not unique to politicians of all political stripes. And she is the soul of punctilious honesty by comparison to Trump. I also regret
her seeming instinctive secretiveness (I still remember her “secret” health
care committee days in the nineties), and her occasional (to be sure, sometimes
understandable!) paranoia. With that said,she is superior in nearly every way to her opponent, or for that matter, even the average
politician<i>, </i>This is empirically
verifiable by going here <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/29/fact-checking-2016-clinton-trump/">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/29/fact-checking-2016-clinton-trump/</a><i>, </i>Trump represents a danger not only by
virtue of his sordid and incoherent policies, but also because of his very
unstable and petulant temperament. It would be a mistake to be fooled by his apparent
isolationism and pacific statements, for his past behaviors and language are
hyper-aggressive, and he has an overwhelming need to appear tough–––and like
many of those who are especially egocentric and thin-skinned, he indicates a
massive problem with self-esteem veiled by a fragile ego. This is a mixture for
disaster with someone in charge of the most powerful military, police, and
intelligence apparatus in the world<i>, </i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is said it couldn't happen here<i>, </i>Well, I suspect something similar was thought in the most
technologically advanced, literate, and cosmopolitan nation on the face of the
earth in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The nation of Beethoven, Kant, and Goethe. And it not only happened, it happened very
suddenly<i>, </i>And in the process, both
conservative and liberal forces were co-opted or eliminated. Had there been a
choice for, say, Pappan or Schleicher
over Hitler in 1932-33, both imperfect men, but not Fascists, and both
realistic alternatives at the time, tens of millions of lives might have been
spared<i>, </i>I do not expect Trump will
kill millions ... though his having the nuclear codes is enough to give one pause. But I do think he could irrevocably alter the course of history
in a dark and sinister way. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Our choice is clear, I think, and it is essential that we do
everything we can not to simply defeat Trump and Trumpism, but to defeat both
by the widest margin possible at all levels ... in the hope of marginalizing
his and his followers' power ... and to do all that is possible to change the
balance of power in the congress, and especially the Senate, lest much mischief
be done to damage the office of both the presidency and the nation. To let the
perfect be the enemy of the good, or even the acceptable, is now simply
unacceptable, given the stakes. Stein, Johnson, or McMullin will not and cannot
win the presidency. To vote for any of them, or to write in another, or to not
vote at all, simply reduces the margin between the forces of rationality and
Trump. Sanders' people who vote for Trump are seriously mistaken that he is no worse than Clinton, or that his various paeans to the worker, jobs, and such are remotely authentic. It is a moral imperative to make that margin as large as
possible for all of our sakes, and for the sake of posterity. He must not
simply be defeated, but he must be <i>utterly</i>
defeated. In the end, voting one's "conscience" ought not to be unconscionable.
Put another way, a vote for anyone other than Hillary in this election is not a
vote against Trump, but mere self-gratification with the delusion of acting out
of principle. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally, the evidence demonstrates that it is a waste of time to
reason with hard-core Trumpers. This is not meant for them. Feel free to pass this on to
the ones who might yet make a difference in the election ahead<i>. It</i> is more than a matter of conscience,
notwithstanding the unsatisfactory choices. It is a matter of principle and the utmost urgency.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
MB</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-39915200657512955642013-03-15T01:23:00.000-07:002017-07-12T15:18:34.173-07:0021st Century Rock Queen: Miley Ray Cyrus<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">From the time Elvis exploded the musical universe and shook everyone up; Jerry Lee's piano burst into balls of fire; Mick had us all under his thumb; Janis took a piece of our hearts; Cherie bombed us; and Ann went all crazy on us, the very best rock ‘n roll has always been in-your-face, bold, evocative, guttural––embroiling our animal spirits in a way that no other modern musical form can. It is basic, primeval, carnal, sensual, blood boiling, and rhythmic, usually with a driving back beat that compels us to get up and move. One can find melodious, smooth, structured, soothing music elsewhere <i>viz.</i> on Broadway, in church, at a piano bar, at the opera, in the dentist's chair, or in elevators. Rock doesn’t calm. It doesn’t simply charm. It doesn’t necessarily sooth. <i>It excites. It enlivens. It motivates.</i> It takes one to another plane. And as often as not, it is overtly sexual. There’s a place for that other stuff, to be sure; but none of it is capable of doing what rock can do. And rock can also use those smoother, melodious forms quite effectively as punctuation marks. Indeed, the best rockers do exactly that. Take early Elvis, who had one of the most mellifluous </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large; text-indent: 0in;">voices ever ... he could be very silken and smooth … but he also could rock down lonely street like no other singer could before or since. Rock always riffs into something more primal: it gets our hips moving, hormones flowing, spines tingling, feet tapping, and our hearts pounding. It makes pictures in our minds; it brings engrams of the mind imprinted long ago to the forefront of our consciousness; it grabs onto us; and, if we let it, it can both elicit and communicate emotions in a way no other musical style does. Rock is dangerously wonderful. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Today we see comparatively little of this in popular music's structured, formulaic, often over-produced, uninspired, and highly-stylized
forms. But there is one person who encapsulates all that is best about pop-rock. She
defines it. The best of our time is a pint-sized, pixie named Miley Ray Cyrus. <i>What? </i>Hannah
Montana née Destiny Hope Cyrus dba Miley Cyrus––the Disney apostate and erstwhile whirling,
twerking Dervish of the VMAs a couple of years ago––<i>that </i>Miley Cyrus? Yes, that
one---one in the same. But twerking Miley is sooo passé. She’s been on to new things these last couple of years.
It got your attention though; it changed the game. It wasn’t just elaborate
stagecraft or computerized pyrotechnics, all fun to watch, to be sure--but now commonplace and expected.
Miley woke you up. She startled you. She <i>shocked </i>you. Like the best rockers before. And like Elvis decades ago, it brought out all the
prissy Puritans and up-tight moral scolds in full force. Now, before you get your panties
in a wad, and before boomers start invoking the old gods: John, Paul, Ringo, and George, hear
me out.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">It is true that Miley does pure pop. Dabbles in rap. And, of course, country. She’s got that
authentic Nashville twang, one she comes by honestly. Her musical roots in country are not dissimilar to pop sensation Taylor
Swift’s, her near contemporary. Miley
is also a damn good balladeer with a surprisingly wide, 4-octave vocal range, which is the same octave range as the melisma queen, Christina Aguilera. Technically speaking, she's (D2) E2 - G#5 - E6 (C7) ... which very few singers can match. For more comparisons, powerhouses Celine Dion and Adele both have a 3-octave range, and pop diva Mariah Carey has a 5-octave range. In contrast to many singers in today's popular music scene, Miley's notes are definite, precise, and without unnecessary embellishment to cover up a lack of precision or fill space that need not be filled. She doesn’t warble around a note to excess or bore us with gratuitous runs, as has become annoyingly customary in pop. Her natural state is as a mezzo-soprano. But she can comfortably hit the high notes when she wants to, and she can go to lower registers much more comfortably, and with greater resonance, than most females. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">And it is equally
true that Miley is just as punk as all get out, a rocker redolent of other
great female artists such as Janis Joplin, Joan Jett, and Ann Wilson. She is capable of belting out any rock anthem there is ... and she can add many herbs and spices of vocal articulation along with the visuals of her supple and expressive body language highlighted by her vividly expressive countenance (she seems incapable of hiding her feelings) to enhance the emotional impact, be it uplifting, sensual, angry, or sad ... and unlike many, she can do it all without props if she so desires. Her unencumbered visage, hands, posture, and movements are able to say it all in a way that no stage artifice possibly could. Unlike many of today's pop artists, Miley does not need distractions to capture attention. Watch some of her Happy Hippie yard performances to illustrate. And, when on stage, like the best rockers, no, like the best artists, she also doesn’t give a fuck what people think … it’s her art and she is going to do it her way. And that is what the most innovative rockers do.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">It was upsetting to
many who saw her as the adorable, clean-cut Hannah to observe her transformation from a
Disneyfied chrysalis into a sexual, self-confident, woman-in-control--a punch-you-in-the-face rocker who would strut, prance, gyrate, grind, and stick her tongue
out--not altogether unlike the bad-boy Mick Jagger did decades ago, who also, like
Miley today, set many a parent on edge. Some still haven’t gotten
over her metamorphosis, calling her disgraceful, slutty, or worse. The fact remains, though, she has
done nothing more risque than Madonna did on stage for a much longer period of time starting thirty
plus years ago; it’s just that <i>no one</i> ever thought of Madonna as being like Hannah
Montana. But unlike Madonna, off stage
Miley is in reality much more of a quiet homebody, happiest being with her pets and taking playful pictures for her fans, sans makeup and costumes. Oh yeah, she has partied and experimented, but not unlike many kids in their late teens and early twenties, and she has been much tamer than her critics would have it. Indeed, much tamer than some of her more contemporaries with more vanilla stage personalities. She was a typical kid and young adult, for Heaven's sake ... or at least with a typical young person's desires---desires undoubtedly constrained by what Disney expected for most of her teen years that she was finally able to unleash ... and typical except for being very rich, talented, and with a lot of access. But she was never out of control contra some other notable young pop idols. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Also like
Madonna, and Madonna's heir, Lady Gaga, Miley is attracted to holistic performance art, one involving her voice, her
body, costuming, and props of her own unique design and style … and often
enough, with trappings intended to provoke, evoke, titillate, and reflect
whatever mood she happens to be in that day. However, as I said earlier, Miley needs nothing but her own voice and body to convey emotion. Don't get me wrong, she likes props, indeed, to excess in my view, but only because I am highly focussed on her voice and person; however, these affectations are as much as anything a product of her youth, her playfulness, and her admitted penchant for shocking people, and they are altogether supplementary. It would seem if her recent release, Malibu, is any indication, that she is returning to a more natural look with fewer props. I don't think there's a performer today who can visually transmit feeling as impactfully and artfully as she can with just her body and voice, and without additional staging. She is able to dominate a stage
with her considerable charisma … and she can rattle your
emotional cage with intention and purpose such that you feel exactly what she wants you
to feel, which is what <i>she</i> <i>is feeling</i>, for she is to a very large extent like a prism for emotional energy, one that refracts her emotions into constituent parts that are able to penetrate her audience. You see it
visually, for she is nothing if not physically expressive; but you also hear it come
from deep within her, and you feel it inside you, whether it is sadness, anger,
happiness, loving, or just wanting to get down and party. Her voice rises up from her chest in her 106-pound (soaking-wet) tiny frame as if it were coming from a deep cavern. She uses her head voice rarely, but when she does it is pure, effortless, and she can go there with either soft tenderness or with piercing power. I think the real key to Miley's musical brilliance is that she is an empath, rather like a Geiger counter of emotion. She feels everything and she communicates what she feels, no <i>exudes it </i>for all to see--what she feels naturally. This is why her performances are seldom identical. She cannot structure what she feels in a formulaic way that, say, Taylor Swift or Beyonce can.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Miley is the daughter of country star <a href="https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn8.whiskeyriff.com/wp-content/uploads/rexfeatures_372078p.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.whiskeyriff.com/2016/01/18/9-times-billy-ray-cyrus-mullet-was-so-goodbad-it-broke-my-heart/&h=600&w=618&tbnid=WmTBCoXb8nTtwM:&tbnh=186&tbnw=191&usg=__OkFZ1NOp1BREcFWFLdv-DAhDEG0=&vet=10ahUKEwj5oIPzzf_SAhVD5mMKHSxFDjUQ_B0IiQEwEQ..i&docid=o1HesOAUzY9ReM&itg=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5oIPzzf_SAhVD5mMKHSxFDjUQ_B0IiQEwEQ&ei=HrPdWPmZEcPMjwOsirmoAw#h=600&imgrc=WmTBCoXb8nTtwM:&tbnh=186&tbnw=191&vet=10ahUKEwj5oIPzzf_SAhVD5mMKHSxFDjUQ_B0IiQEwEQ..i&w=618">Billy Ray Cyrus</a>. She
was born in Tennessee in 1992. She’s been around for so long it’s easy to
forget that she is only 24. Miley was wont to entertain from a very young age, seeking attention and center stage, and she had her first professional break in bit roles on her father’s television show, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=miley+cyrus+on+doc&tbm=isch&imgil=nRvESxzha84vfM%253A%253BlmB7HTr7gs5USM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.capitalfm.com%25252Fartists%25252Fmiley-cyrus%25252Fphotos%25252Fthen-and-now%25252Fdoc%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=nRvESxzha84vfM%253A%252ClmB7HTr7gs5USM%252C_&usg=__I5v5yWmjjycM0OnVq5o11HUMmZ0%3D&biw=1536&bih=759&ved=0ahUKEwjU-N-ezf_SAhUG12MKHQLSBx4QyjcIOg&ei=bbLdWJSOIYaujwOCpJ_wAQ#imgrc=nRvESxzha84vfM:">Doc</a>. But what carried her further was no one other than herself and her own talent. While there is a clear advantage in terms of gaining initial access, no parental advantage makes one a superstar. She did that all by herself. Very simply, the girl could sing, and her smile and personality could light up a room. She had the vocal chops and the charisma that came across on both screen and stage. Indeed, her very name, Miley, is derived from the appellation and nickname “Smiley Miley,” indicative of the fact she was always happy and smiling as a child; her name was eventually formally changed from her birth name, Destiny Hope, to Miley Ray. </span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span>
</span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">By 13 she was a Disney television star where she played a wholesome teen … <a href="http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/15200000/Hannah-Montana-Images-miley-stewart-vs-hannah-montana-15236005-800-600.jpg">Miley Stewart</a>, a regular teen girl by day, and by night––in disguise––a veritable junior rock goddess and teen idol, Hannah Montana. She quickly became Disney’s biggest star--a multi-platinum album artist, a movie star, and one of the biggest concert draws in the history of the tween-teen market. By the time she was 16 she was famous the world over as a real-life teen idol. Under the careful guidance of her parents … despite incredible wealth at a young age (she’s worth several hundred million dollars today), the pressure of being constantly watched and judged, she remained surprisingly centered. </span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Miley doesn’t have
a backstory of financial privation, a dysfunctional family, or the customary (often invented) <i>Sturm und Drang</i> to inform stereotypical rocker angst.
Her family was well-to-do, loving, and close knit … they still are. She apparently
was even part of the so-called Purity Ring, chastity movement––and by
comparison to many in her celebrity peer group, even her age group more generally, she’s has had relatively few romantic
entanglements, notwithstanding a reputation to the contrary, much of which has been manufactured by the tabloid press. The slut-shaming crowd, always at the ready to tear down women who dare to use suggestive or overt sexuality in their art, helped to promote the idea that her stage persona represented the way she always behaved off stage. No doubt, in part this resulted from a calculated effort by Miley to shed her goody-two-shoes image; but it does also represent what she <i>felt</i> at the time, what a great many young adults feel at that stage in their lives, in fact, and she is nothing if not pathologically authentic about herself ... whether about her love life, sex life, likes, dislikes, worries, laments, and her pains. She bares her soul for all to see on stage and hear in song, and on stage she is completely vulnerable. What you see is what you get with Miley. And what you see tomorrow may be entirely different than what you saw today or yesterday. Her art reflects her feelings at the moment. To observe her in concert (I've only seen those recorded and available on YouTube or television) is to see her performances always vary with her moods. </span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Perhaps the biggest child star
since Shirley Temple, it’s hard to express your adult artistry when everyone
expects you to be a perpetually virginal, sweet, and precocious fifteen-year
old. She has effectively shed that
image, but in truth, she is closer to being the good girl she grew up being, because she actually <i>is</i> a good girl (well, she likes marijuana and she says fuck a lot ... but <i>so what</i>, that's tame), and she is in many ways the opposite of an unbridled party girl that those who don't follow her think she is. She is kind, selfless, gentle, sensitive, and full of grace. She is always in control even when she seems out of control. She knows
precisely what she is doing, and by all accounts from those who know her best, she is in complete charge of both her art and her life.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">By her late teens, Miley wanted to break away from the Disney mold … and it was time for a full-grown, normal woman to emerge and to release the pent-up musical energy she held inside while dutifully purveying very respectable bubble-gum pop. Her first truly adult hit came with her oft covered pop-country anthem, "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG2zyeVRcbs">The Climb</a>," which won MTV's best song from the 2009 movie, <i>Hannah Montana: The Movie</i>, and also the Teen Choice award for best single. This was soon followed by "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M11SvDtPBhA">Party in the USA</a>," the infectious song from her album, <i>Time of Our Lives</i>, along with the award winning lovesong, "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIqimoNyEBQ">When I Look at You</a>." These efforts resulted in Miley becoming iHeart Radio's International Artist of the Year in 2009. Her evolution as a serious rocker really began with her album <i>Can’t Be Tamed</i> in 2010, with the eponymous hit song and the sultry, “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVbQxC2c3-8">Who Owns My Heart</a>.” This is where we start to see some cracks in the good-girl shell. But these were still in between her earlier pop self and her rock self. The latter came full force with her next album, <i>Bangerz</i>, released in 2013, when like Venus emerging fully-formed from the head of Zeus, a rock goddess came forth with songs such as “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrUvu1mlWco">We Can’t Stop</a>” and “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YICuUtkjlg">Wrecking Ball</a>” (director's cut) … the former an in-your-face, party hardy, I don’t give a damn, paean to having youthful fun, and the latter an angst-ridden anthem of love and heartbreak, alternating between emotional capitulation to fulsome outrage, and a song that gives one more than an inkling of her vocal prowess. Bangarz had some mediocre tracks ... but so did <i>Sgt. Pepper's</i> and <i>Exile on Main Street</i>. Her "FU" song, for example, seems gratuitously in-your-face and without much point, a mere throwaway. The album was a hit, and “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My2FRPA3Gf8">Wrecking Ball</a>" (click for record-breaking, explicit version) deservedly charted at number one in the United States. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Several songs in <i>Bangarz</i> were accompanied by visually
stunning, and provocative videos with record-breaking views, and “Wrecking
Ball” won MTV’s “Video of the Year” in 2014. Perhaps more than any other video
in recent memory … and aside from the raw sexuality … in “Wrecking Ball” she is
able to convey emotion in an authentic, evocative way that few singers can match, and one senses, or more accurately, one really knows that she is feeling the emotion she’s describing, that it’s not
just an act, and her facial expressions and real tears, even a runny nose, add to
and even say more than words alone could possibly convey. One doesn’t have to
see it to feel it, but seeing it enhances the listening experience due to a
powerful and charismatic presence that she visually conveys.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Miley received some unfair and wholly hypocritical criticism for borrowing from hip-hop culture, as though hip-hop stood alone without exogenous influences, and as though it was only to be cloistered in a gilded cage in which only a few were allowed to enter. She was criticized for using black iconography and symbols, and for capitalizing on them to assist her commercial endeavors, a laughable criticism coming from those who do exactly the same thing day-in and day-out, selling it well beyond the African American community ... and who borrow freely from other forms. It is as silly as saying early jazz artists in New Orleans "stole" from ragtime, hillbilly music, and John Phillip Sousa and other musical forms only for crass utilitarian purposes and without due acknowledgement. Or that when they changed they thereby disrespected what they left. No, they incorporated others' art into their own, for that's what artists do. And they are not beholden to any particular form, they are entitled to change, as most great artists do over time. I have written more about this issue here: <a href="http://meberumen.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-vicissitudes-of-genius-miley-and.html">Critics</a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Miley’s next venture was <i><a href="https://www.mileycyrus.com/andherdeadpetz">Miley Cyrus and Her Dead Petz</a>, </i>a quasi-psychedelic collaboration with the
Flaming Lips featuring some pieces with subtle overtones of both country and punk. It
received mixed reviews, as is the case with most worthwhile stuff, because it
won’t satisfy the watered-down, pedestrian tastes of those accustomed to cute, smooth, or flouncy-bouncy, vanilla pop. Miley does things her way, and to top it off, she made the album available to her fans for free! This is an internationally famous artist that could easily have made millions from it. That's the thing about Miley: she is true to herself and, first and foremost, to her art., and she marches to the beat of her own drum, critics be damned. It makes her nearly unique in the superstar arena. She actually does things for free. To suggest she is a crass utilitarian or solely commercially oriented is simply a <i>prima facie</i> falsehood. Some of her most vocal critics cannot make that same claim. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i>Petz</i> is an avant-garde, highly experimental, autobiographically authentic, at times salacious, and in places, brilliantly conceived--and mark my words, it in due course will be seen as important and transformational. The best pieces were written solely by Cyrus; but she had collaborators on some, and the hand of Wayne Coyne of the Flaming Lips is a significance presence. In a word, <i>Petz</i> should be considered a remarkable work from any artist, but perhaps particularly remarkable given that it came from a 22-year old. No one but Miley Cyrus could write and sing a heartfelt tearjerker about her pet blowfish, the late <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu08WcOWMnY">Pablow</a> (along with some other tributes, thus the title). Laugh if you will; but then listen to it, for it is a wonderful piece. Then there's the vulnerable Miley of "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7CPNlWulb0">I Get So Scared</a>," which portrays the mixed-up honesty of a young woman trying forget a past love while playing the field. Or how about the plaintive "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBMwdhuuzUY">Slab of Butter</a>" (get past the introductory stoner talk); the melancholy "<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=cyrus+skies&oq=cyrus+skies&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.5080j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">Cyrus Skies</a>"; the haunting "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UuuQKEhprc">Karen Don't Be Sad</a>"; the deep and provocative "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC3ERprzbbs">1 Sun</a>"; or the lyrically light "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9nc4DLYGKg">Space Boots</a>" --- nothing in Jefferson Airplane's psychedelic repertoire was better than these, and most of it was not nearly as good. <i>Petz</i> is in parts a work of considerable genius. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Petz also has some very explicit and personal tracks about sex; offputting to some, no doubt--but that's Miley Cyrus, or at least she's the one willing to tell it in song, for it is not at all unexpected or uncommon for a young person to have many of the same feelings and anxieties that she evinces and manages to express so beautifully, and also often bluntly and unvarnished, which will undoubtedly make some listeners uncomfortable with the unfettered exposure to her inner emotions and desires. To be sure, there are a few throwaways (it's a double album, there are 23 tracks--and again, it was released at no initial cost to her fans), but it is a radical, extraordinary, and welcome departure from over-produced, derivative pop. </span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">While all this is going on, Miley has been involved in a
great many charitable endeavors. At the grand old age of 24, she is one of the
most generous celebrities in the world. She has contributed a great deal of
money, time, and energy to causes ranging from the City of Hope to helping
homeless and at risk youth. She has been very involved in supporting the rights of LGBTQ persons. People who have worked for her
and who know her personally attest to the fact that she is a remarkably kind
and compassionate person. This sits in
juxtaposition to her critics, the pious moralists who find tight pants, exposed skin, and some youthful, hormonal stage
antics by a girl in her early twenties to be so reprehensible, but who in their suffocating sanctimony probably do comparatively
little, if anything at all, to ease the privation of the less fortunate. Since her Hannah
Montana days, she has used her celebrity to great effect in order to ease the suffering of others in different ways. Not just with money, mind you, but with her feet. Often, for example, she would
… and still does … visit sick kids in hospitals to their delight, and she visits and encourages homeless and outcast kids. Recently she
formed her charitable foundation, <a href="http://www.happyhippies.org/">Happy Hippie</a>, which supports various worthwhile causes primarily centered on youth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">One of the things that illustrates her integrity is her sense of loyalty--one that differentiates her from many in her industry--for example, the fact that she has kept the
same musicians as her <a href="http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/6077648/miley-cyrus-bangerz-tour-behind-the-scenes">principal band</a> since she was a young teen. That is highly
unusual in an industry that manifests comparatively little fealty, and where
there is considerable turnover in the musical support staff of a star of her
stature. She doesn’t simply cast people aside, and she takes care of the people who depend upon her and upon whom she depends (see interview with her musical director and drummer since age 12, <a href="http://www.musicradar.com/news/drums/stacy-jones-on-wrecking-arenas-with-miley-cyrus-605882">Stacy Jones</a>). And she shows absolutely no jealousy or
pettiness towards the successes of others in her industry, including her own
musical family. Indeed, she goes out of her way to help others get ahead, and not least of all her little sister, Noah, whose recent entry into the musical scene is something Miley lauds and promotes at every turn.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Now let’s get one thing straight: Miley Cyrus has vocal abilities which greatly exceed the capacities of the average pop or rock star. She uses her natural instrument to suit the music and the mood … she can growl, yell, croon, use falsetto, be smokey, go high or low, be smooth or sweet, devilish or coquettish, plaintive or assertive. When she rocks out, she uses her rock voice, which is incredibly powerful and capable of shaking the roof. Her natural position is mezzo-soprano, but she is comfortable just about anywhere in the tolerable listening range. But unlike many of her contemporaries, she is in no need of auto-tune (click for examples) or high-tech help, notwithstanding the fact she does like to experiment with techno-electronica. Anyone who doubts her basic rocker pipes should listen to her hair-raising cover of Aerosmith’s “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l2HQdPt92U">Dream On</a>” with Adam Levine, Alicia Keys, and Blake Shelton as part of the television talent show, <i>The Voice</i>, where she is one of the musical judges. Or if you have any doubt about her ability to do a powerful ballad that can stand-up to anything Adele or Celine can do (actually, for my own tastes, she is better, and her vocal range is certainly larger), check out the song “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT2w9-QB1b4">Hands of Love</a>” written by Linda Perry for the movie, <i>Freeheld</i>. Or listen to her <i>Happy Hippie Backyard Sessions</i> (available on You Tube), where she illustrates her remarkably smooth and powerful lower range in a duet with soprano Arianna Grande, covering Crowded House’s “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2ua3O_fdCY">Don’t Dream It’s Over</a>;” or her cover of the emotional Dido classic, “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmKU14TRiho">No Freedom</a>”, where it is visually evident that she is enveloped and transformed by the sentiment the song conveys;” and listen to the incomparable justice she gives to her godmother Dolly Parton’s plaintive masterpiece, “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOwblaKmyVw">Jolene</a>”. My point is, don’t think even for a moment that she can’t carry a tune. She can hold her own with the very best divas of any era.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Miley has just recently released two songs, namely, "Malibu" and "Inspired," that are expected to be part of her forthcoming album. Both are a departure from <i>Bangerz</i> and <i>Petz, </i>and not quite like anything she's done before. And both have autobiographical significance. I have written more about Malibu here: <a href="http://meberumen.blogspot.com/2013/03/miley-cyrus-and-malibu-coming-of-age-in.html">Malibu</a> </span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Miley Ray Cyrus is only 24! Do keep that in mind. At that age, the Beatles and the Stones best work was yet
to come. She has already done quite a bit, both in her music and, of great importance, as a compassionate and extraordinarily giving human being. And I hope
and fully expect that there is much more to come from her. I can’t wait. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">MB 2-4-17 (amended 7-12-17)</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-31157165771216511472013-03-14T14:00:00.000-07:002016-05-08T12:53:49.943-07:00Fascism and Trumpism Update (From a letter to members of The Bertrand Russell Society)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Donald Trump continues to rise in the polls. If you doubt
the lunacy of large elements of the GOP, simply add together the current
polling for Trump, Carson, Huckabee, and Cruz. The latter are in varying
degrees misinformed, cynical, irrational, and dangerous; however, with that
said, Trump is vastly more dangerous (and interestingly, LESS conservative in
the sense of the traditional Nelson Rockefeller/Bob Dole, country
club/Midwestern-heartlander kind of Republican, or the quasi-libertarian
Republican kind, which all hew to variations and species of liberalism, broadly
understood. No, his outlook is much more akin to George Wallace
(pre-1980) and Strom Thurmond's, and their Southern
Democratic/Dixiecrat/American Independent ilk ... actually, he is even more
like Louisiana's Huey Long (a Democrat) or worse, really, for Trump is an
out-and-out Fascist. There is no exaggeration, here, for anyone that
knows anything about the history of post-WWI Germany and the rise of Hitler, or
Italy in the late 19th century up to the rise of Mussolini. Do not be
deceived by his adopting and adapting what might be otherwise described as
liberal, progressive, or even socialist points-of-view. Or his pandering
to an anti-government theme. Despite their anti-government narrative, a
narrative fostered by those who know better, many of his supporters do not even
know what socialism is, or just how much they depend on government. Remember
the Tea Party types who said, "Keep the government out of my life and
don't take away my Medicare," etc. Trump is anti-government, too, that is,
unless it works to his benefit, or <i>unless he <b>is</b> the
government</i>. It is already clear Trump knows nothing of the U.S.
Constitution, cares nothing for it, or for the rule of law in general. He
would make his own law. <i>Trump is an authoritarian</i>, one who
identifies the greatness (or potential greatness) of the state with himself.
This is what he means by making America great again. How patriotic of him to
suggest it is not great now ... and only he can make it so. Given the right
circumstances, one can imagine him arresting the Supreme Court, declaring
martial law, and rounding up dissenters and all manner of people he
dislikes. He could potentially change everything about which Americans
have rightly been proud and even ideals for which they have fought and died,
perhaps most notably in WWII. He represents a danger to the entire world,
too. Imagine his having power over the Justice Department (Atty. General/FBI),
intelligence agencies, and the military--a military more powerful as measured
by money than at least the next 7 largest <b><i>combined</i></b>!
Does anyone honestly believe he would care what the legislature thought if it
was not in agreement? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Many in the GOP leadership have begun to denounce him,
finally, and even the media (which he continues to manipulate brilliantly) and
punditry have caught on; but Republican candidates continue to refuse to say
they will not support him if he is the nominee, or at best, they waffle around
using weasel words, saying he won't be nominated, so they will of course
support the nominee. There is cynical political calculation here, in
addition to simple, unadulterated cowardice, for they are aware that if they
did so--said they won't support him-- that it might cause him to renege on his
agreement (<i>agreement </i>from a man who has filed bankruptcy 4 times
... oh yes, under corporate cover) to support the nominee if he loses, and
having been treated (in his perception) "unfairly" by the
establishment (all who disagree with him), and thereby cause him to run as a
third-party candidate--ensuring (they think) a Democratic/Hillary Clinton
victory. Given some untoward events, Trump's loss to the Dems or
Republicans is <b>by no </b>means a forgone conclusion,
notwithstanding a third party. So Democrats who hope for just that, a third
party, should not be so confident. This is not necessarily a G. H. W.
Bush and Ross Perot redux, which handed the election to Bill Clinton. Trump is
vastly more skilled, politically, than Perot, though he has some of the same
appeal and constituents. By the way, Hitler and his supporters also claimed to
be treated unfairly in the early 30s by the Hindenburg government and the
German political establishment in the face of his increasing popularity in the
both the Reichstag and among the population (but he was still in the minority
at that point). In any case, a courageous and responsible Republican
leader would be willing to risk losing the election with the opportunity to
cleanse the party of its irrational, Tea Party, and erstwhile Confederate elements, those who left the Democratic Party in droves after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts and transformed the once progressive Republican Party, the party of Lincoln.
Let Trump form a third-party with his neo-Confederates. Then the
Republican party might be able to recover its moral bearings, and become a
responsible center-right party, and without having sacrificed many of the
values upon which it was originally founded by abolitionists, modernizers,
ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers in 1854. What has become of the party of Abraham
Lincoln? Trump and his followers must be marginalized and cast aside and steps
taken to see that this insidious movement withers away. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I hold the left, center-left, and so-called moderates partly
responsible for helping to create this climate with some of their own nonsense,
but that is another story that I don't want to focus on here. And
certainly their culpability pales by comparison to the cynical but rational and
monied right (e.g, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Koch brothers, Roger Ailes, energy
industry, firearms manufactures, etc.), which for many years has fostered,
fomented, financed, tolerated, and exacerbated the alienation, fears, and
prejudices of white, uneducated workers (the Sarah Palin-Tea Party crowd), and
in recent years, even significant parts of the remaining middle class (recently
described by Pew as a minority), making ripe the opportunity for a person like
Trump---whom they only have now just realized they cannot control and insert a
Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush (center-right moderates in sheepskin) to protect their
interests without their "man" getting too wild and woolly. They have
encouraged and sponsored much of the lunacy of right-wing radio, television,
and blogosphere, giving the illiterate, alienated, worried, and disaffected a
sense being well informed and fueling their anger and anxiety. They have truly
hoisted themselves by their own petard with their cynical support of Willie
Horton, Swift Boat, Gun and God, anti-gay, family values nonsense to incite the
fervor of the base. For the most part, the so-called Republican
establishment created the environment, laid the groundwork for this new
Fascism, unwittingly I think, through their cynical politics in supporting
various fantasies and fueling the anger of a radicalized base in a craven
effort to protect their interests without considering the consequences. The
chickens have come home to roost. Now these same people need to gather the
gonadal material to help us take steps to squash the Frankenstein they've created. And those of us who
hew left or liberal need to ensure that we do not divide ourselves to elect
"the perfect" candidate (a Chimera, anyway) over the <i>better
than a Fascist</i>. That thinking--voting idealistically and without
regard to reality--helped to give us W over Al Gore (I refer to the Ralph Nader supporters in Florida). That was bad enough,
but this could give us something unimaginably worse. Even unpalatable to the Bushes. This is a practical
issue. <i>As practical as one gets</i>. I suspect if he is the nominee a
large number of Republicans might defect in the general election, ceteris
paribus. <i>However, things may not remain equal, and if some more
sensational, tragic events occur, I fear the very worst.</i> What is more,
even if he loses, this time, look at the stage he and others have already
set. So no matter what occurs, there is a long term problem with which we
must deal. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally, I want to remind people, again, that many of the
things being said about Muslims (and Mexicans, for that matter!) are strikingly
similar to things that were being said about Jews in the 1920s in Weimar
Germany. Including how violent they are, untrustworthy,
unpatriotic, etc., etc. If you doubt me, read <i>Der Sturmer</i>,
the Nazi news organ, or take a look at Joseph Goebbels' diaries. And of
course, mainstream Germans thought these things were all the ludicrous rantings
of a minority led by a madman that could never attain power. I have no
love of religion, <i>any</i> religion, and that includes the three
Abrahamic desert religions. But I do love freedom, and I do not believe
in collective punishment or oppressing people who believe things that I don't,
for there are all kinds of things others believe that I don't believe, and that
I view as wrong or even silly. I am concerned about what people DO, how they
act, not simply what they profess to believe (how many Jews, Christians, or
Muslims take their texts literally? Precious few. Thank goodness.). In
those instances where acts are taken to dangerous extremes they must be dealt
with by just means. Most members of the Bertrand Russell Society, I think, believe similarly. Trump is not
Hitler. But he <b><i>is</i></b> a Fascist, make no mistake, and
he and his growing posse of believers pose many dangers to freedom and all
freedom lovers, and therefore the religious and non-religious alike. And people
who speak glibly of the Enlightenment and Islam not having had a sufficient
dose of it shouldn't get too cocky. Some of our "enlightened"
post-Enlightenment predecessors have caused many more millions to die than any
religion, per se, including Islam, which for centuries was far more tolerant
than Christendom. Guided by a sense of history, reason, and morality, we
must do what we can to stop Trump. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-30089179261578659412013-03-14T12:10:00.000-07:002016-05-07T12:41:19.135-07:00Defeat Modern Fascism and Donald Trump<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Having looked at the recent change in political polls in the
United States in the aftermath of Paris and San Bernardino, I find it difficult
to think of much other than what I wish to opine about here. It is quite
early in the presidential election season, and things often end-up very
differently than the way they start out. However, there are many
differences in the political climate this time, and there has been much to
confound conventional wisdom ... and I am more worried about the future than I
have ever been since I was able to vote. I am hoping things will change very
soon.<br />
<br />
When I was young I undertook a study of Fascism and Nazism from both an ideological
and historical perspective. There are many overlapping ideas and trends, but
they are also different in aspects of their underlying theories (especially in
relation to early, Italian Fascism) and their historical development. But
I was particularly fascinated with how Germany, the country of Göethe,
Beethoven, and Kant ... with the most educated and literate population then
extant, and possessing a representative democracy, one with a system of laws
and distributed powers ... could in less than a decade become a land of
unprecedented intolerance, death camps, and a country that would cause the
deaths of tens of millions of people across the globe, indeed, bringing the
entire world as close as it has ever come to being enveloped in a dystopian
abyss. It is especially remarkable that throughout most of the 1920s and up to
1933, Adolf Hitler was a laughing stock and a figure of derision among the
elites on both the conventional right and left, including the governing and
military classes. He was thought to be a comical buffoon by the political
cognoscenti; a crass vulgarian by the upper classes; a semi-literate theorist
by the professoriate; and a silly, erstwhile corporal and martinet by the
senior officers of the <i>Reichswehr</i> hailing from the elite <i>Preussische
Kriegsakademie</i>. Soon enough, though, these smug elites would be singing a
new tune, and they would be goose-stepping and <i>Sieg Heil</i>-ing to it,
and be assured, most people did—including the complacent naysayers of the
universities, drawing rooms, and military--or they'd find themselves in a camp
or swinging from a rope or affixed to a meat hook. Such a buffoon ... a
laughing stock that could never rise to power ... is among us today. I am
referring to Donald Trump. I believe Trump and Trumpism represent a greater
existential threat to the American way of life than ISIS, which is not to
understate the need to deal with violent fundamentalism, but it is important in
doing so that one not lose all one holds dear or one's humanity.<br />
<br />
There are obvious differences between the US now and Germany then, and, to be
sure, between Trump and Hitler; however, there are too many similarities
to go unnoticed. Trump, like a good Nazi or Fascist, is very adept at
blending the popular ideas of both the ideological right and left, and he does
so in a way to capture the imagination of many, and especially of the
dispossessed, the disgruntled, and the insecure. And I draw special attention
to the latter condition:<i> insecurity</i>. There has been a fair
amount of economic insecurity for many years. Now there is the insecurity
of physical safety. Like Hitler, Trump borrows easily from both capitalism and
socialism (e.g., he has supported a single-payer health insurance, and would
restrict markets and trade, among other things), and he cannot be categorized
in any conventional sense ... consider Hitler's own words in describing
National Socialism: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes
national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living,
creative Socialism." (Adolf Hitler, Max Domarus. <i>The Essential
Hitler: Speeches and Commentary</i>. pp. 171, 172–173) Trump is a complete
utilitarian and opportunist, adopting whatever principle that will work to win
support, and he is especially adroit at appealing to our darker biases and
tendencies, and playing upon our primal fears. And like the author of <i>Mein
Kampf</i>, Trump well understands that even the biggest lie, when it is
repeated both often and loudly enough, will be believed by many. He is no fool,
and contrary to the musings and smugness of today's elites ... he is the
smartest man in the Democratic or Republican field, not in a cerebral,
literate, or intellectual sense ... but in an instinctive, intuitive way, and
not altogether unlike Adolf Hitler's peculiar and Satanic genius... and, like
the latter, a master of self-promotion and publicity, gifted at understanding
and tapping into the darker impulses of people. He is much smarter than the
media, too, both the mainstream and conventional left and right-leaning outlets,
including even its most gifted puppet masters, such as Roger Ailes of Fox News.<br />
<br />
I will make a bold and, I believe, defensible assertion: Donald Trump is the
most dangerous politician of prominence in the United States since Huey Long,
the "Kingfish” of Louisiana who might well have taken the presidency away
from FDR in the thirties, and who was another kind of American-styled Fascist.
Indeed, Trump is perhaps much more dangerous given his wealth, national pulpit,
mastery of media, and the breadth of his popularity. Recent events have given
his appeal and potential for power even greater sustenance. In my view, he is
potentially even more dangerous than the criminal Richard Nixon, who produced
the greatest Constitutional crisis since the American Civil War, or even the
foolish war criminal, George W. Bush, and his sidekick, the odious brigand,
Dick Cheney, who together killed tens of thousands of people unnecessarily, and
whose stupidity ultimately gave us ISIL. Each was very bad, of course ...
but none a Fascist or Nazi-like in any real, historical or ideological sense.
Saying someone is worse than Richard Nixon is a very big leap for yours truly.
But Nixon, for all of his criminality and paranoia, was not a proponent
openly--or even surreptitiously--of as much wholesale evildoing as Donald
Trump. As Trump is a clear and present danger to the US, indeed, the ultimate
Anti-American, he is therefore a danger to the world as a whole. Taking even
the slightest chance of handing over America's economic and military might to
this man should send shudders up every thinking person's spine.<br />
<br />
Trump is an obvious authoritarian, and he glibly ignores many of the most
important aspects of the U.S. Constitution and the laws protecting minorities
and the individual liberties of all, and he does so in a very clever and
sometimes subtle manner, one that appeals to large swaths of an aggrieved
population. He is clearly a racist; probably an anti-Semite (one need
only have heard his unbelievable speech to conservative, Republican Jews, one
that punctuated with the worst stereotypes!); a bully who suffers no
criticism, one who even countenances physical action against those who dare to
do so (such as the forced removal of a Black Lives Matter protester and a Hispanic
reporter from his rallies) ; a hyper-nationalist, making ordinary flag-waiving
patriotism seem tepid; an economic protectionist and proponent of state
corporatism--a quasi-centralized control, much like the Nazi’s unholy economic
cartels and alliances; an unabashed nativist; and he identifies the greatness
of the nation with his own personality. Add to this his highly exaggerated
sense of machismo and masculinity, hallmarks of the self-portraits and public
posturing of both <i>il Duce</i> and <i>der Führer.</i> Every
single one of these characteristics was shared by the leaders and major
proponents of Nazism ... and all but racism and anti-Semitism by Italian
Fascists, that is, until Mussolini (and then only when it benefited him as part
of the Axis, and much later in his career).<br />
<br />
Hitler had much material to work with, of course, with the aftermath of WWI and
the pervasive feelings of national disgrace that obtained; the Weimar economy
with high unemployment and hyperinflation; the perceived threats of communism
and anarchism; a distrust of free or unfettered markets and of the bourgeoisie;
a perceived moral decay and the libertine lifestyles of elites; and fear of the
principal bogeyman of all, the Jews, the alleged source of all manner of
depredations, economic and otherwise. And though different in some major
respects, Trump has his own material in the current environment: feelings of
dispossession, economic dislocation, and alienation among the uneducated white
working-classes; fear of the "other" as manifested by anti-immigrant
sentiments in major segments of the population; and an unsettled middle-class
and even many affluent, educated people who are looking for predictability and
stability. He has of course made much of the “otherness” of President Obama,
and he is the chief instigator and popularizer of “birtherism” and the result
is that 43% of Republicans consider Obama to be a Muslim and even more think he
is an illegitimate president. Only 29% of Republicans believe he was born in
the United States. This is all part and parcel to Trump's insidious agenda to
turn the present majority of whites against minorities and to capitalize on the
changing demographics in America. It is not that he is a theoretical racist
with an overarching racialist philosophy a la Herder, other proto-Nazis, or the
malevolent Joseph Göebbels; he is much more of a practical racist.
Indeed, like some Nazis, such as the Strasser brothers, Trump panders to those
he would abuse or exclude, and uses them as dupes (his African American acolyte,
Omorosa, comes to mind), but only to the extent that it is useful. Perhaps more
worrisome than anything, however, is the increasing insecurity that arises from
the reality of terrorism and the growing (disproportionate to reality) fear of
it, which serves to attenuate tolerance and to magnify all of the other
concerns I've mentioned. And now Trump has even insinuated in
not-so-subtle terms that Obama has a hidden agenda to support Islamic
terrorism.<br />
<br />
Just to scratch the surface of some of Trump's most reprehensible ideas, he
unreservedly has promoted identifying and tracking Muslims ... even if they are
American citizens; he advocates killing the families and destroying the homes
of families who have the misfortune to be related to terrorists, notwithstanding
their guilt or innocence (presumably babies and children, too?); he would erect
walls around the nation to keep people out, walls that might also keep people
in; he openly and repeatedly accuses Hispanic immigrants and African American
citizens of being criminals of the worst kind; he is a crude and vile critic of
all who disagree with him; he would trample the property rights of owners to
suit the interests of the state, and he would ignore (and routinely says he
would) enshrined principles and statutes of commercial and contract law, both
domestic and international; he would violate even the Geneva Conventions on
military matters; he says awful things about women and the disabled; and he is
an utter fabulist, making things up about other people, historical events, and
even about his own biography at every turn. All of these things are in various
ways and in various degrees eerily similar to a certain failed, Austrian
artist.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump is definitely not your grandfather's Republican. Taft,
Eisenhower, Dirksen, Goldwater, and Rockefeller are all spinning in their
graves. He is not even a Reagan or Bush or Romney Republican. That only a
handful of nationally prominent Republicans today--or even Democrats--are
roundly, unambiguously, and pointedly denouncing him is shameful. Who
among them, like Churchill not so very long ago, will take the political risk
of denouncing this evil man, notwithstanding any public ignominy that could
result? Donald Trump is something very different than previous Republicans. He
is certainly not a liberal or libertarian, but he is also not a conservative.
Hitler and Mussolini did not fit into any of those conventional categories
either. He possesses all of the key characteristics of a Fascist, and
many of a Nazi, though I have only lately come to use the latter designation in
describing him. I do not use these labels lightly, I hasten to add––unlike many
who did in my idealistic youth, or even some today who use those appellations
flippantly and, more often than not, inaccurately ... or those who compare
various people on the political right with whom they disagree to Hitler, which
is nearly always inaccurate and sheer hyperbole. <i>There is only
one Hitler</i>, but no one of importance comes as close in style, character,
and ideological makeup in my view as Donald Trump. Modern conservatives
(who still hue to and wish to "conserve" many liberal principles) or
even most reactionaries or nationalists/Chauvinists (in the proper sense) are
not Fascists or Nazi-like. Donald Trump, however, is like one by every
significant lexical and historical standard. Is he genocidal or will he
be rounding up people and putting them into camps? That might be a
stretch, and I simply don't know. He has not said so.But I do not trust him.
Hitler was not openly so or advocating this for many years, either. He
gained power, first. And many of the things he said and did to gain power are
not dissimilar to things one hears today from Donald Trump in his constant
bellowing about making America great again (its renewed greatness achievable
only through him, of course, for he is great himself, and Americans can share
in his greatness by basking in his unalloyed and glorious reflection) ... and
by his very open pandering to people's hatreds and fears.<br />
<br />
There is one more historical thing to consider. Do not think what is
beginning to occur with Muslims, at least in terms of the open talk, is
altogether dissimilar to what was happening to Jews in Germany in the early to
mid-1930s, and particularly prior to 1938 and leading up to <i>Kristallnacht</i> (late
'38), after which things would rapidly deteriorate into the Holocaust.
The Jews, a relatively small percentage of the population, were blamed for many
ills, ranging from Bolshevism to financial mischief, and it was customary to
point to the depredations of a very few Jews to paint a broad brush across all
Jewry. Sound familiar? The Jews were increasingly seen by many as a threat to
security ... as being un-German , unpatriotic, and even traitorous (Germany having
been “stabbed in the back” by Jews in WWI ... causing the nation's humiliation
and defeat … and a well-known Nazi shibboleth) ... and dangerous in many
different ways. Do keep in mind there were a very small number of radical
Jews who were also anarchists and Bolsheviks, and who committed some violent
acts of insurgency. The Nazi's used and magnified such incidents to great
effect in their propaganda. This is not altogether dissimilar to the
small number of radical Jihadists among Muslims in the west. (A great many more
violent acts were committed by people of Christian backgrounds then and now!!
But never mind that! Just as over 33,000 people die each year from guns in
America today, and almost all at the hands of non-Muslims!) And then it all
began in the early 1930s with identification programs, then enforced
segregation, then restrictions of legal rights and finally the elimination of
all rights, and so on! In a matter of a few years well over half the
Jewish population left Germany. Over 90% of those remaining, a couple of
hundred thousand by the beginning of WWII and within Germany's borders proper,
were exterminated. It couldn't happen again? Don't kid
yourself. And if you think some of the things we hear today from the
likes of Trump, especially Trump, but also from his sympathizers and his
fearful apologists (some on Fox News, for example), is all that different from
things that were being said in Germany in the 20s and 30s, you are very
mistaken and need to read the history about that period. There were
differences in conditions and national characteristics, to be sure ... but some
very unsettling similarities.<br />
<br />
I believe it is incumbent upon all liberal-minded (in the broadest sense of the
word, not a partisan one) and thinking men and women of good will to denounce
Donald Trump; to declaim against his repugnant beliefs; and to take steps to
prevent this monstrous personality from ever gaining power. Never have I
had Santayana's admonition about repeating history by not learning from it as
much in mind as I do now. Perhaps it is unlikely that he will be the
nominee of the Republican Party. But we should not assume that he won't
be, and we should not as individuals remain silent while there is a chance that
he could be. And if he is the nominee, Americans, please vote
practically, not idealistically ... for whomever on the current scene is
against him (most likely Hillary Clinton) and who also has a chance of winning,
even if he or she would not be someone we’d prefer. In the meantime, I am
considering registering as a Republican (temporarily!!)--a party I mostly have
loathed since 1969--just to vote against him in the primary! Heaven help me.<br />
<br />
I apologize for the prolix nature of this. I hope others might
agree. And finally, I hope that someone prominent on the political scene
will rise above his or her fears and find the courage to roundly denounce this
man and his evil views. President Obama is too professorial and
analytical in my view, though he certainly has access to the pulpit. The
Republicans up until now have mostly been afraid or cannot gain the attention
necessary to do so. Hillary does not have the oratorical skills. The nation will never elect Bernie Sanders. As
all who know me know, I am no fan of either Clinton, but Bill is the most
capable politician with a national audience, and perhaps only he has the
requisite oratorical skills and the standing to do what is necessary. I
hope he sets practical political calculation and triangulation aside, takes the
necessary risks, and rises to the occasion as Churchill once did when no one
else would, and that he condemns this charlatan and his odious ideas loudly,
persistently, and once and for all. If not him, then someone else must. I
know some will think I am overreacting or overstating the case. That is exactly
what many said, no, <i>what most thought </i>after the failed and
somewhat comical <i>Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch</i> of 1923, and for
several years thereafter. Not so much by 1934, though, at which time
Hitler declared himself Führer. Let us therefore not take any chances. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8202993.post-2780361473105011032013-03-14T11:04:00.000-07:002019-01-21T10:51:09.267-08:00White Trash and Trumpism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">Written in an email to the Bertrand Russell Society membership in 2016 as a rejoinder to comments on “white trash” and some sympathy shown for uneducated, white Donald Trump voters, with the idea that they only need to be convinced they are voting against their interests and will see the light. A failure to see that often enough their "interest" in their minds is white privilege and bigotry. </span></b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I am going to give my friends, here, a short distance-learning course in "white trash." These are <i>my</i> people. And to some degree, their ethos continues to influence some of my own sensibilities. Put another way, you can take the boy out of the trailer, but it's hard to get the trailer out of the boy. There's been a lot of talk about class, lately, and specifically, white trash: red-hatted Trumpers, the disenfranchised working man, and such––so perhaps you ought to hear from some real white trash. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I have nothing to hide, so let me give my <i>bona fides</i> to establish credibility. My mother was born of a chorus girl who gave her up at one and a half years old. Mom and I finally met her when she was 35 and I was 13. She gave away two other children, too. She would later commit suicide with a handgun, an unusually violent method for a woman. My mother's natural father was in prison in Indiana for many years, having been involved with the mob. She was taken in as a foster child by a woman who then would have been considered near elderly in her late forties, and who would eventually adopt her. My biological father was a womanizing, gambling, alcoholic who died of cirrhosis of the liver at age 38. I saw him no more than a dozen times after the age of 4, for after catching him in bed with another woman in our own house (he thought we were gone longer than we were), with me at her side, as I well recall, my mother divorced him. He didn't pay child support. She then married a Mexican-American man, a WWII vet who was not all bad, by any means, and who I’d eventually come to love, but who nonetheless would beat me black, blue, and bloody, and, I should say, with some regularity. We moved a lot due to his work, and I lived in many different places. They lived check-to-check and were in constant debt.<br />
<br />
I was a precocious kid and started college early. From age 12, I didn't have to take many classes due to my test scores, and I spent much of my time in the school library. At 14 I was entered into a program where one is tested periodically for having high test scores at an early age. I had a perfect 1600 SAT. I am no genius -- far from it, other than by a silly number described in an entirely inadequate way to define that very rarest of qualities. It is an overused, much-abused term, but that's not our issue, here. Anyway, they didn't have special education available in public or parochial schools for working-class kids in those days. My folks didn't know what to do with me. I then devolved into juvenile delinquency (I was already on the edge when my natural father died when I was 14, which might have been a catalyst event). I skipped school, illegally, since in CA minors had to be in school or were considered truant, college or not. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I ran away from home for extended periods on numerous occasions, in part, because of difficulties with my stepfather. But I can't blame him entirely, for I was also out-of-control quite on my own. Among my other depredations, I have stolen cars, jacked hubcaps and radios, robbed, cheated, taken many kinds of drugs, hopped a train, and lived in Haight Ashbury for 2 months and then the Sunset area in Hollywood for another 2. I was in juvenile hall for 4 months (I'd already been in jail overnight a couple of times as a runaway---once in Flagstaff, Arizona when my friend and I were caught in a train yard), which, in my case, changed my life for the better. It was there I decided I would change and become punctilious with the truth and learn to be a good person. I have not always succeeded, but mostly I have. Why was I in juvy? I helped another kid rob a donut shop owned by a family we didn’t like in Campbell, California by acting as his lookout. They caught him right away. The police showed up at my house later that night. He was charged with armed robbery, even though he faked having a gun in his pocket. I served some probation after juvy, and a clever lawyer had my records expunged, as I was only 15 ½. That expungement helped me immensely in the military not much later, for my military occupation enquired a security clearance that I certainly would not have been able to get if I had an accessible record. I was lucky the neighbors who were interviewed by the FBI in the process of investigating me were not forthcoming. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, I joined the military at the height of the Vietnam War little more than three weeks after turning 17 on August 11, 1969. I did well on some tests with the recruiter such that I was offered a good position. So they trained me in cryptography at Fort Gordon, Georgia after basic training in Fort Lewis, Washington. When I got out some 31 months later (due to troop reductions, earlier than my 3-year commitment) I was only 19, closer to the age of most incoming freshman, and I resumed college and finished undergrad school in record time. I started grad school with the idea of teaching philosophy or mathematics. By then, I had become a more or less decent person. I was lucky to have had good role models both in the military and in college, and in college, one professor in particular who nominated me for the Danforth scholarship. I eventually fell in love and found a mate better than me, her people being poor farmers who came to California in the Great Depression––Grapes of Wrath style, with a mattress on their car. I lucked into a job that gave me more opportunity than I could have imagined a few years before. I was very lucky. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So yeah, my point I this: as you can see, I was white trash and I came by it honestly. And to no small degree I am still white trash, deep down, even though I live well, have a good education from two leading universities, have been exposed to worldly things, and I have had a reasonable amount of success due in no small degree to sheer luck. I can speak both languages; inhabit both worlds. So be assured, I know my white trash––and better than most intellectuals who write lengthy disquisitions about white trash, that's for sure, and from the inside out. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Let me make clear, white trash is not simply a matter of being a poor or working class, uneducated white person. There are other aspects and dimensions. Not all poor white people are uneducated or white trash. And not all white trash are uneducated and poor, either. Most are. Okay, with that said. I've read Vance's <i>Hillbilly Elegy</i>; Hochschild's <i>Strangers in their Own Land</i>; and Isenberg's <i>White Trash</i>. Each has merit, but they all miss the mark in various degrees in their attempt to rationalize and explain the conditions and sentiments of my people. For one thing, with the possible exception of Vance, there is an unwillingness to admit that white trash rather <i>like</i> being white trash ... we pretentious people-of-letters folk need to get that through our heads: they often like and prefer their white trash ways over the alternatives, though they might label themselves differently (not all!). Many intellectuals arrogate to themselves (even including people like me with a white trash heritage who only appear to escape the pull of its gravity) the "true" understanding of what they and others need, the world vision that everyone ought to share. Permit me to use some occasionally very crude language, along with some over-generalization, just to make a point that I think many here, who are probably not white trash, need to understand. I come now to the central feature of my course in one paragraph.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Here's a thought experiment. If I put "my people" into a Bertrand Russell Society annual meeting, how do you suppose they'd react? My people are Trump people, by and large ... those who'd bother to vote, anyway ... and many would have voted the very first time for him. You see, Trump is white trash. Or have you failed to notice his tastes and mores––a vulgarian's interior decoration by some uncouth amalgam of Louis IV and Elvis, among other things, an interest in beauty pageants, crude jokes, machismo, and chasing and talking about grabbing pussy. But let's not get diverted by that. First of all, they'd be bored to tears in the meeting. They'd be sure to make fun of it among themselves. When it was over (not soon enough), they'd think and most likely say what a bunch of useless and weird pussies who dress funny and can't look you in the eye, couldn't manage a copy machine, let alone hotwire a car, defend a family, and worst of all, don't believe Jesus, Blood of the Lamb, is the Son of God. Probably Jews or something (oh yes, that sentiment certainly exists, <i>do not kid yourself</i>). Instead, they admire some old beak-nosed, short fuck who ran with commie hippies and preached cowardice.<br />
<br />
You don't think so? Trust me, that is <i>exactly </i>along the lines of what most of them might think. Oh yes, you say, but that is because they are oppressed, uneducated in ways of the Enlightenment. If we told them what they need is more education to understand the right ends, the aspirations they ought to have for a Russellian "good life", to "conquer happiness" (as though Russell himself was happy when he wrote <i>Conquest</i>—most definitely not); and if we also explained that inequality and the malefactions of the ruling class is what really drives their privation and bigoted outlook, sows division and clouds their true interests, and keeps them down and out as surplus labor, etc.; and then if we were to extol the virtues of science, philosophy and reason––fine art and good literature––surely they'd see that these things are vastly superior to watching <i>Hangover II</i>, <i>Celebrity Apprentice</i>, or sitting 'round the local country-western roadhouse listening to Hank, Sr.; and it seems evident that by then we could show them the true merits and path to work for a classless, peaceful society (run by us, of course) and such. Ha!<br />
<br />
Not a chance, friends. More likely they'd think, and if pressed (not very hard, either), they might say, "Fuck you, you atheistic, pacifist prick. By the way, did you serve your country? Fuck the rich people too. Except for Donald, who is one of us. Give me their damn money and I will buy me my own, bigger roadhouse with better-looking girls --- and a new crew cab sized, jacked diesel Ford truck, made in 'merica. Shit, I want to be in the ruling class dip shit. Get out of my face before I kick your spindly, sandaled ass. I'm going to World Wide Wrestling for better entertainment, right after I get my skull tat I've been planning." Oh, it might well get worse. You think I'm kidding or exaggerating? If you do, or if you think, my, he's doing a great disservice to them, well, you are in the clouds as to what they really think about you and your world view. You do not know white trash at all if you think that. Watch a Trump rally for heaven's sake. And be advised, t<i>hey are on their good behavior, there</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Intellectuals are often not only deluded about what many who they haughtily classify as the oppressed, disenfranchised, or dispossessed really want––or they think that if only they had their superior tutelage, education, that they'd come to see the error of their ways, for, after all, these poor people are the products of a system of unfair economic and social forces, etc., etc. The myth of Socrates endures: knowledge is the answer to everything, and everyone has it within them. They, on the other hand, would tell you to go fuck yourselves. <i>And that's the truth</i>. Yeah, they want more money. But certainly not so they can be like us or have our world. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, these same intellectuals often lack the basic self-awareness to see their own arrogance in thinking only they know better––the philosopher king syndrome––assuming that they know what others <i>ought</i> to desire, and failing to admit that they really despise–––other than in an abstract, unreal, and disembodied form–––the underclass as they <i>really</i> are, and, I'm here to tell you, as they, on the whole, prefer to be!! The former seeks to alter them, to turn them into what they want them to become, not to embrace them as they are. The truth of the matter is that the latter, the white trash, are in this instance the more honest bunch, for they'd tell you straight out they dislike the do-gooder intellectuals who'd seek change them in ways they don't want to be changed, in contrast to the intellectuals who often enough are simply being dishonest (or delusional) in disguising with paeans of humanitarian interest what really amounts to contempt for the underclass, laden with faux concern and patronizing attitudes, and the arrogance to think they know better about what preferences people should have. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Beginning in 1972 I became a political activist. I was the political education officer for a Bay Area chapter of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and a youth campaign coordinator for the Democratic Party. Working for George McGovern's campaign for president, I helped register farmworker voters with the United Farm Workers. I had occasion to become somewhat acquainted with the great Caesar Chavez and several UFW principals over several months. I can assure you, Caesar was on to the subtle elitism of many liberals and their patronizing ways–––Anglo activists, many from the Socialist Workers Party and like organizations, who'd deign to show how the downtrodden Mexicans should behave and believe, under their own <i>noblesse oblige</i> form of management, of course. Chavez shook up the structure to rectify this. Many intellectuals who declaim against the elitism and classism that they maintain oppresses the poor and working class, often with great, apparent concern, in reality, are among the worst elitists of all, and that is because they would inform others what constitutes proper virtue and ends, the kind of world they should desire, a world they do not want, and they'd tell them their views are really all bogus traps set by other forces and powers to subjugate them. "You mean I want to have a life like Dukes of Hazzard or the Kardashians only cuz the Koch brothers want me to?" "Bullshit," they'll tell you. Oh, but then we'd say, well, that's because they don't have minds of their own, being tools of the masters of the universe from Wall Street, and if we only had them for awhile, we could get them oriented the proper way. A Maoist kind of solution. How did that work out? And, to be perfectly frank, that is precisely one of the reasons they often despise people like us. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Let's be honest, many self-proclaimed, enlightened liberals don't really care for "the people" ... they only care for them insofar as they might become as they imagine they should be ... what <i>they </i>want them to be, and not as they are. Obviously, there are exceptions, and many do not think this way ... but there are plenty that fall into this camp. We need to understand that convincing many "core" Trumpers of our world view---which in broad outline, I myself, and notwithstanding my roots, also want---is not going to succeed in the short term. It is a fool’s errand to think otherwise. That is a long term project, one that will take one or two more generations, <i>ceteris paribus</i>. But the latter point is the key qualification, for things may not remain the same, they could very well change, that is, if and as Trumpism, a species of modern Fascism, takes hold. Once it does, the world we in the BRS want, with some individual variations on the theme–––but certainly for most if not all of us, a world of liberty, peace, prosperity, where reason is prized–––will be lost for a long time, indeed, maybe forever. The starting place is not convincing the average white trash male to vote for a liberal Democrat or Green Party candidate. It ain't gonna happen. The starting place is to get the non-Trumpers to defeat Trump and Trumpism at the polls and in the courts. The white trash, my erstwhile brethren, will come along in time. But not anytime soon and maybe not in the current generation. In brief, first things first. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Sincerely, MEB<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
PS: I'm not running for the board again, and I'm ceding my official responsibilities very soon. So if you have second thoughts, now, given my youthful depredations and my deep-seated, residual, trashy sensibilities, you won't have to worry about it much longer. In the meantime, I hope everyone will do their part to ensure that Trump and his followers do not create exactly the kind of world that will prevent or long delay the world that most of us want to come about.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-1944134588366089";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 15;
google_ad_format = "728x15_0ads_al_s";
google_ad_channel = "";
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com