Both Sides -- Minus Nastiness

photo: Joi Louviere, Washington Post


The Majority: So black people are upset that a white girl won the campus queen title at historically black Hampton University?

The Minority: Don't say "black people." It's some black people, not all. Even in the picture showing the girls who didn't win the contest, only two out of three look pissed.

The Majority: If it was white people who were saying that they were upset because somebody who won something wasn't white, you wouldn't be satisfied hearing that it was just "some," would you? No, you'd be saying that it was racist, and that any of it was too much. Are you gonna say the same about this?

The Minority: Nope, because it isn't the same thing.

The Majority: Yeah, sure, it's not the same because you're the ones who want to do the excluding. When you're dishing it out, it's fine and dandy, but when you're on the receiving end, it's a national crisis, right?

The Minority: Well, sort of, but not completely.

The Majority: That's real helpful.

The Minority: Here's the deal. If you won't let the kids from down the street into your little club, and you tell them, "Go away and get your own club," you shouldn't be surprised that they'd get mad that they're not allowed to play. And you shouldn't be surprised when, after they get mad, they do go away and get their own club. When they do that, it doesn't make much sense for you to come demanding to get let in.
But let's say you do get let in -- and the kids down the street decide they're going to make you club president for the week. Shouldn't the kid who was gonna be club president that week be mad? Shouldn't he think that the folks who did the excluding in the first place had no business coming around to butt into the club that was only started as a reaction to them being jerks? He's been double dissed. His antagonism toward you isn't the same as you not wanting to let him into your club in the first place.

The Majority: All well and good. But this isn't a club, this is a university. It isn't too likely that any Hampton students were told that they couldn't go to a school because they were black. So they can't be righteously angry at this girl because of anything done to them.

The Minority: This isn't about attending the school. Nobody is saying that she can't come to Hampton at all. This is about winning a beauty pageant.

The Majority: And nobody kept any of these girls from entering the Miss America contest or any other beauty pageant they want.

The Minority: It's not just about entering, though. It's about being able to believe that there is a place where your looks are valued enough that somebody who looks like you can win the beauty pageant. Women of all sizes, shapes, and colors want to believe that somebody considers their looks beautiful, and their husbands, boyfriends, fathers and brothers want to give them that validation. Maybe it's neanderthal paternalism, but one of the ways that validation comes is through pageants whose results say, "These women are our ideal." When you were thinking that a particular contest was one where you or your girlfriend would be getting that validation, it's no fun to see a result that says that the person who was embraced down the street, where you were rejected, can also come down to your clubhouse and get the prize you were hoping for.

The Majority: Why should anybody still need special validation? Vanessa Williams was Miss America before these Hampton kids were even born, and black Miss Americas have come along often enough that they're not even headline news any more.

The Minority: The three runner-up girls in that picture don't look like Vanessa Williams, though, do they? If ladies that looked like Serena Williams were the regular Miss America-winning black women, then these girls probably wouldn't be thinking that they need some special place for validation of their beauty.

The Majority: So special places for validation of white beauty are okay, too?

The Minority: There's no need for special validation when the default mode is giving you constant validation already. There are special contests for plus size women and petitie women, but there don't need to be special contests for women taller than 5-9 who wear size 4 or less.

The Majority: What if you're just a reasonably nice looking white girl that doesn't look like Jessica Biel? Special contests for your particular look, too?

The Minority: Well, "white" is not a particular look. If you look like Nicole Kidman, you're not gonna be entering a contest for Catherine Zeta Jones lookalikes. "White" doesn't really mean anything affirmative; it's more a negative, as in "not black, Latin, Asian or Native American." If what you're trying to promote is "Anybody But Your Kind," Our Kind is not gonna be too fond of that concept.
But if you're promoting a particular look, it happens all the time already, and nobody gripes. The queen of the St. Patrick's Day Parade in Chicago, from the looks of things, is chosen to promote somebody's idea of what an Irish beauty is supposed to look like, which is apparently much more likely to be a redhead than an Uma Thurman or a Rebecca Romijn.
When black women with looks from Alicia Keys to India Arie were all treated the same by the mainstream, they were all considered part of the mix that needed some love that nobody else seemed inclined to give. As time goes by, one end of that spectrum has a bit more chance to get validation elsewhere, but the other hasn't quite received the same affirmation that her kind is prized, too. She's going to feel the same dis by the Hampton result as the redheaded, freckle-faced Irish lass is going to feel if Gisele Bundchen is the next St. Patrick's Day queen.

The Majority: Fair enough. But is any of this the fault of this young lady that won the Hampton pageant?

The Minority: Probably not. So heckling or otherwise disrespecting her would not be cool. This is one of those situations where folks should be aware of the difference between being bothered by the person and being bothered by the statement made by the person's presence in the position. You know?

The Majority: Is this a transition to another subject?

How Does NOW Know?

Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill

October 6, 2009

Recent developments in the David Letterman extortion controversy have raised serious issues about the abuse of power leading to an inappropriate, if not hostile, workplace environment for women and employees. In the case of Letterman, he is a multi-million dollar host of one of the most popular late-night shows; in that role, he wields the ultimate authority as to who gets hired, who gets fired, who gets raises, who advances, and who does entry-level tasks among the Late Show employees. As "the boss," he is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace -- and he did that with sex. In any work environment, this places all employees -- including employees who happen to be women -- in an awkward, confusing and demoralizing situation.

* * *

The National Organization for Women calls on CBS to recognize that Letterman's behavior creates a toxic environment and to take action immediately to rectify this situation.

http://www.now.org/press/10-09/10-06.html

NOW certainly would be correct in saying that when a boss asks a subordinate for a date, there's usually an unequal power relationship that prevents the subordinate from feeling completely free to say "no." They'd be just as correct if they said that it's generally not great for office morale to have employees thinking that a hookup with the boss was the surest way to success. And of course, they'd be right on target if they pointed out that, as a rule, such relationships are best avoided, because the fallout from the breakups is dangerous to both parties, especially the lower-ranking one.

But "usually," "generally," and "as a rule" are not the same as "always." And so far, we don't know that anybody on the Late Show set felt a "toxic environment." The women who were involved with Letterman haven't complained about their relationships with him. The staffers who weren't involved with him haven't publicly griped that they couldn't get ahead without getting with him.

So, on the facts we know at this point . . .

. . . it seems possible that the ladies who dallied with Dave did so because they wanted to;

. . . it seems possible that their freedom to say "no" was never in question because they had hoped they'd be asked, and were planning to say "yes;"

. . . it seems possible that they saw more to gain than to fear from an up-close embrace with the boss's power;

. . . it seems possible that the relationships got started because Letterman and the ladies liked each other for reasons above and beyond mere objectification;

. . . it seems possible that they are fine with the way the relationships went;

. . . and it seems possible that nobody else on Letterman's staff felt unfairly excluded from any of the possible benefits of working on the show.

NOW does itself no favors by ignoring those possibilities. By presuming a crime before any victim can be identified, it reduces itself to a parody. No advocacy group is credible when it's safely presumed that they'll see offensive behavior even before they've bothered to look.

Where Have You Gone, Everett Dirksen?

As historians often remind us, American political discourse has always had its nasty elements. Early pamphlets and newspapers were more openly partisan than Fox. Founding Father Thomas Jefferson helped fund one publisher, James Callender, who wrote that Jefferson's antagonist, John Adams, was "mentally deranged," and a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

So those who claim that today's nastiness is business as usual are probably pretty accurate, when they're talking about the fringe extremes. But what those claims miss is the fact that a whole category of politician has disappeared: the partisan who is also a centrist and moderate. Job one for today's minority party leader is to hasten the success of his allies, which in today's hyper-competitive America, means making governance difficult for those on the other side of the aisle. In a zero-sum world, me winning means you losing, and I've got to do what I can to achieve those goals twenty four-seven. Everybody on my side has to be on board.

It wasn't always that way. Minority party leaders were once able to cooperate with their opposites in the majority. Proof of that fact is no farther away than the public comments of Senator Everett M. Dirksen, the Illinois Republican who happened to be Senate Minority Leader from 1959 to 1969. Could Mitch McConnell make himself say these words about any Democratic president?

• July 3, 1966
  

Q: Is Lyndon Baines Johnson a good President? How do you evaluate him?

A: Well, he is a skilled president. He is a president who is founded in history. And when he was a majority leader and we were opposite numbers, we went on a theory that this was a two-way street and government had to be made to work, and he still undertakes that, and his door is open any time I want to see him. My door is open any time he wants to see me. My telephone line is open any time he wants to call. And so from the standpoint of a cooperative endeavor between that part of the legislative branch that I have the privilege to represent, and the executive branch, I must say he has done quite well.

• February 7, 1965

. . . it is quite a compliment, I think, when the President who bears another party label from mine calls me to ask how he gets out of a difficulty and extricates himself from a real problem in the Senate. My duty as an American, of course, with an allegiance and fidelity to my country requires than I help him. I would be a poor citizen indeed if I didn't do the same for any President regardless of his politics where the country's interest is at stake.

• March 5, 1961

Q: Senator, a recent Gallup poll after President Kennedy's first month in office asked the people whether they approved of the way he was handling his job. . . .

How would you have voted, sir, if the Gallup poll had asked you?

A: Well, I haven't the slightest idea how I would have voted. I think from the standpoint of diligence and devotion and timing, he has done a very good job.

Could a modern Republican repeatedly sound such conciliatory notes toward Democrats and maintain a leadership position within the party? Arlen Specter would probably say not. Today, a partisan must oppose. That includes everything from withholding votes to shouting "You lie!"

Henry Clay, Senator, Speaker of the House, and Secretary of State, was known as The Great Compromiser. In 19th-century America, that label was an accolade. Today, it would be a snide insult.

The Unused Script

"The presidents of the other three finalists went to Copenhagen.

Why couldn't Obama?

You think the IOC didn't notice that he was the only head of state who didn't come to show his support in person?

We're not just talking about his country, we're talking about his home town. The mayor and everybody else thought the Olympics would promote development, help boost the local economy, and speed the area's recovery. All they were asking him to do was take a quick plane trip and make a little speech to show the IOC that the President is a supporter of the bid.

He couldn't string together a few paragraphs of good things to say about his city and his country?

That shows how much he really hates America!"

Taking One (Or More) For The Team

Then Rickey, a devout Methodist who wouldn't attend ballgames on Sunday and prohibited his players from using profanity, role-played a succession of foul-mouthed bigots of the type he knew would try to provoke Robinson, including a spectator, headwaiter, hotel manager, sportswriter, and a succession of players who would try to spike him with their cleats or bean him with a ball or umpires who would make biased calls. Finally, Jackie demanded, "Mr. Rickey, do you want a ballplayer who's afraid to fight back?" Rickey shot back, "I want a ballplayer with guts enough not to fight back. You symbolize a crucial cause. One incident, just one incident, can set it back 20 years."

Gordon Edes. "Opening a New Wide World: Robinson's Impact Felt Well Beyond the Chalk
Line," The Boston Globe, 28 March 1997; quoted at http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/pdf/hs_in_robinson_rickey.pdf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's spokesman publicly disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday over Carter's contention that some conservative opposition to Obama is based on race.

"The president does not think it is based on the color of his skin," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.

Save Us From "Government-Run" Health Care!

You can't blame the health insurance companies if they fight the health care "public option" as if their corporate lives depended on it.

Their lives do depend on it, and they know it.

Health Care Service Corporation, the parent company of several Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurers, is honest about it:

"It is estimated by the Lewin Group that a government-run health plan based on Medicare payment rates to physicians and hospitals would be offered with premiums 30-40 percent lower than private insurance. This would drive more than 100 million people into the public plan in the first year. In a very short timeframe, this mass migration would result in a collapse of many aspects of private health insurance and our current health care system. If a government-run health plan were initially required to offer negotiated payment rates to health care providers, it is widely believed that over time those rates would be ratcheted down and set by government, resulting in the same scenario described above."

That doesn't require much translation. A public option would offer such dramatic premium savings that private health insurers wouldn't be able to compete, and they'd soon go the way of the dinosaur.

Government-sponsored competition doesn't always eliminate private players. The existence of public housing doesn't drive the private housing market out of existence. Public universities didn't make Harvard go away. If the private sector is offering something better, it won't be eliminated by the creation of a cut-rate version funded by tax dollars.

But the private sector can't really do health insurance better, can it? If a corporation collects $1000 in premiums, it can only build snazzy headquarters, pay employees, and give dividends to shareholders by paying out less than $1000 for medical expense reimbursement. A for-profit corporation can only do what a corporation is supposed to do -- improve its bottom line -- by funding less health care, which is exactly the opposite of what society is clamoring for. Sure, a private insurer can try harder to encourage its customers to be healthier. It can try to recruit more young customers who don't need much care. But it will eventually need to try to turn away and dump the bad financial risks: the folks who will need more health care than they can pay for. When it's that clear that private industry needs to do the opposite of what society needs it to do, it's time for society to take up the job.

That doesn't mean that the the insurers' concerns are irrelevant. The current administration decided to throw billions of dollars of life preserver at General Motors only after calculating that letting the company lie in the bed it made would result in a meltdown that would cost more to clean up than to prevent. It may well be that too many lives are wrapped up in the insurers to let us obsolete them. That's a fair topic for discussion.

But that's a different discussion than the one we're currently having. It's high time that we entertain the insurers' true position -- that they desperately need the government to protect them -- instead of the one they're trying to push -- that the public option would inflict un-American terror on the nation.

What's Wrong/Discussion Reset: Big Government

Popular Fallacy: "Welfare" is somehow un-American.

Reset: "Welfare" is one of the reasons the founding fathers formed a government in the first place. As the preamble to the Constitution tells us: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That's "promote the general welfare." Not "clear a space for efficient markets." And it's a purpose mentioned even before securing the blessings of liberty.

Popular Fallacy: "Big government" is inherently bad.

Reset: Eliminating the armed forces and the Department of Defense would cut the size of the federal government and its budget a whole bunch. Add Medicare, Social Security, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to the trash pile, and you're left with a government that's less than half its current size.

And yet nobody suggests those moves. Because everybody understands that if we want government to do something, and it needs to get bigger to do it, we're all in favor.

So when speakers calling themselves "conservative" gripe about a government program and suggest that they've identified an objective evil when they label it "big government," it's worth remembering that they have done no such thing, and that "big government" is objectively neutral. What they've actually done is stated a subjective preference, and that preference is usually that they not be taxed to have government perform that function.

Popular Fallacy: Government can't be trusted to do anything right; to get it done well, the private sector has to do it.

Reset: Some tasks are too big for private enterprise. Others aren't sure enough money-makers to attract private investors. If society needs those things done anyway, there's only one recourse.

Which is why government does the most important job a society can assign: defending its existence.

It is also why you can count on street lights to manage traffic at busy urban intersections and have a reasonable expectation that the driver approaching the intersection from your right has been taught to interpret red and green lights the same way you do.

A corporation couldn't afford to develop and build state-of-the-art defense systems if it had to count on discretionary private funds to pay for them. And society couldn't afford having the rules of the road known only by those who were willing and able to buy the education.

It's not like private enterprise is the most effective way of getting things done, either. The corporation's reason for being is to make maximum profit for its shareholders. If it can do that by building a better mousetrap, defense system, or driver education program, so be it. But if it can make more cash by providing substandard product while driving away the competition or winning the advertising battle, that'll be the chosen route. And if it can't make a profit on mousetraps, weapons, or drivers' ed, they won't get done at all.

The bottom line is that profit-driven corporations are all about promoting their own specific welfare. If they do anything for the general welfare, that's just a happy coincidence.

Popular Fallacy: Social welfare programs are nothing more than attempts to appease the over-stimulated do-gooder impulses of bleeding-heart liberals.

Reset: Social welfare programs are capitalism's best and most practical hope for self-preservation.

The McCarthyism of the 1950s uncovered communist flirtations started in the 1930s, and communism was popular in the 1930s because of depression-era poverty. When enough people start thinking that the current system is only offering them a life that's miserable, they start imagining ways to do away with the current system. World history shows what happens when the powers that be try to squash those imaginings: sooner or later, the little people employed to do the squashing realize that people they'll never be like are demanding that they lock up or shoot little people just like themselves. Before you know it, the powers that be have gone the way of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, and your country is being run by somebody with a military title.

Fortunately, America didn't handle its potential unrest that way.

New Deal social programs, whether effective or not, offered at least the promise that the lifestyle the average American could expect if he hit rock bottom wouldn't be so bad. The extra promise offered by the GI Bill and the boom that followed the Second World War made it easy for millions of working-class men to believe that hard work could give them middle class education, income, lifestyles, and respectability.

By the 1950s, the soldier or cop from next door didn't need to resent the fact that he had to defend some muckety-muck from the kid on the corner; he, too, could be that muckety-muck in a matter of a few years, so he could understand the need to keep that corner kid in check. When society keeps him thinking that he has a vested interest in the status quo, and that he isn't just some chump defending the interests of a few rich guys, society is doing itself a big favor.