Uncommon Sense


Pat Buchanan – A Racist in the Truest Sense of the Word
October 21, 2009, 8:37 pm
Filed under: U.S. Politics

I’m quoting in full via Andrew (and TNC) because this is the blog post of the day, you cannot miss this one:

One does not quite know what to say about Pat Buchanan’s latest. Is it too predictable to note? Or too ugly to record? Or too stupid to ignore? Upon reflection, I’ll go with stupid. Take one simple point. Notice that for Buchanan in this column, it is axiomatic that America was once defined by its whiteness. This is what he means by “tradition.” America – once uniformly white – is now, for him and those he speaks for, bewilderingly multicultural and multi-confessional. Hence the anxiety. Hence the panic. Hence, in some ways, the confluence of fear and paranoia among the 20 percent of Americans who seem to feel this way and see the federal government in some way as the enabler of this destruction.

But this axiom, while useful as a myth, has a problem. It is untrue. And this “country” that white Americans are allegedly losing is not, in fact, a country. It is merely a self-serving and solipsistic illusion of a country that some white Americans feel they are losing.

From its very beginning, after all, America was a profoundly black country as well.

This took a while for an Englishman to grasp upon arriving here, because it’s so easy to carry with you all the subconscious cultural baggage you grew up with. England, after all, is deeply Anglo-Saxon. It makes some sense to refer to England’s roots and ethnic identity as white, its language as English, its inheritance as a deep mixture of Northern European peoples – the Angles and the Saxons and the Normans and the Celts. And superficially, English-speaking white Americans might seem in the same cultural boat as white English people, dealing with a relatively new multiculturalism in an increasingly diverse and multi-racial society. And at first blush, you almost sink into that lazy and stupid assumption, especially if you arrive in Boston, as I did, and carried all the usual European prejudices, as I did.

The English, lulled by their marination in American pop culture from infancy, and beguiled by the same language, can live out their days in this country never actually noting that it is an alien land – stranger than you might have ever imagined, crueler than you realized, but somehow also more inspiring than you ever thought possible. This is the America I am trying to make my home, after 25 years. It is not the America of Pat Buchanan’s or John Derbyshire’s fantasies.

It struck me almost at once, if only in the music I heard all around me – and then in so many other linguistic, cultural, rhetorical, spiritual ways: white Americans do not realize how black they are. Even their whiteness is partly scavenged from the fear of – and attraction to – its opposite. Even something as stereotypically white as American Catholicism, I discovered to my amazement, was also black from the very start. (Yes, those Maryland slaves. If you’ve never been to a Gospel Mass in an ancient black Catholic parish, try it some time.)

From the beginning, in its very marrow, this country was forged out of that racial and cultural interaction. It fought a brutalizing, bloody, defining civil war over that interaction. Any European student of Tocqueville swiftly opens his eyes at the three races that defined America in the classic text. Has Buchanan read Tocqueville? And that’s why it seems so odd to me that the election of the son of a white mother and a black father is seen as somehow a threat to American identity for some, when, in fact, Obama is the final iteration of the American identity – the oldest one and the deepest one. This newness is, in fact, ancient – or as ancient as America can be. The very names – Ann Dunham and Barack Obama. Is not their union in some ways a faint echo of the union that actually made this country what it is?

That some cannot see Buchanan’s cartoon as a travesty of history remains America’s tragedy of self-forgetting.

It reminds me of the way in which Britain always defined itself as a Protestant country, even while, of course, it was deeply, deeply Catholic before it was ever Protestant – and for a much longer period of time. As a Catholic growing up in England, and having genealogical roots in both Catholic Ireland and in Domesday Book England, it took a while for me to appreciate the pied beauty of this identity. Tribalism is a powerful thing, especially for the Irish. I remember one day, as I was herded into the local Anglican church for my high school assembly, thinking: “This ancient building was once mineours.” But that was before I realized that Anglicanism itself could not be understood without the profound inheritance of English Catholicism – and that Anglicanism was actually a hybrid of Protestant and Catholic Englishness. And that this was England - all of it. And to be truly English was to own it all.

Buchanan, of all people, should know better than these tedious recurring explosions of racial panic. And, of course, he does know better. He has read more history than most pundits. He is personally a civil and decent man. But he feels these things in such a profound and tribal way that what he knows is submerged by tribal fear and expressed as hateful hackery. But this much is true and deservesrestating:

Black Americans have shed blood in every American war since the Revolution. This country, even the very Capitol building in which today’s legislators now demand to see the birth certificate of the first black president, was built on the sweat and sinew of slaves. Before we were people in the eyes of the law, before we had the right to vote, before we had a black president, we were here, helping make this country as it is today. We are as American as it gets. And frankly, the time of people who think otherwise is passing. If that’s the country Buchanan wants to hold onto, well, he’s right, he is losing it.

And about time too.



Quotes of the Day
October 21, 2009, 8:33 pm
Filed under: U.S. Politics

All via TNC who is on a roll today.

On hate mail:

After a bubble bath, a good cry and an episode of the Real Housewives Of Atlanta, I’m prepared to take on the world again!

On Andrew’s post:

I need to read some damn Tocqueville.

On Jewish people sticking together:

That’s TNC–sowing discord in the Jewish community since, uhm, 2008.

On Lists:

I mean, some listsare OK. But by and large, they’re silly. They’re especially silly given it’s becoming increasingly clear I’ll never be on one. I’ve already missed 30 wealthiest under 30, (I’m rich with friends!) I don’t think I’ll be making 40 most interesting under 40 (What? The cult of death in mid-19th century America isn’t fascinating?) I do have hope for hottest dudes under 60 (Black don’t crack!)



Motor Voter Laws for Teens
October 6, 2009, 12:21 pm
Filed under: Elections, Voters, Youth

Cross-posted at Roosevelt Institute at Boston University (RCN):

n 1993, the National Voter Registration Act (commonly known as the Motor Voter Law), was signed by President Clinton.  The Motor Voter Law allow for voter registration to occur in a place where most Americans spend an ungodly amount of time waiting – the DMV.

The goal of the Motor Voter Law was to increase voter registration by allowing citizens to register to vote when they renew their licenses, apply for plates, or any other activity that takes them into the offices of the DMV.

However, one area where the NVRA has failed is in the registration of teenagers.  Most teenagers in the US will troop down to the DMV to pick up their first driving license sometime around the ages of 16 and 17.  Unfortunately, US law notes that citizens must be 18 years old to vote, and 18 years old at the time of the election in order to register to vote (effectively, one can register before he or she is 18 so long as during the upcoming election cycle, that voter will have turned 18 on or before election day).  The Motor Voter Law, designed to make it easier for people to register to vote – does nothing to help the scores of teenagers receiving their licenses for the first time.  The law does not apply to them.  They do not qualify because they are too young.

California is currently working on changing the way their system works, following in the footsteps of states like Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii.  AB 30 – a bill that has been passed through the California legislature (on strictly partisan lines, all Democrats voting for, all Republicans voting against) – is currently sitting on the desk of Governor Schwarzenegger, waiting to be signed.

The bill allows 17-year-old to preregister to vote at the DMV at they time they get their license.  This preregistration will ensure that all new teen drivers will have the opportunity to fully use the resources of the DMV (that have been provided with federal funds through the Motor Voter Law) to register to vote while receiving their license and be able to vote in their first election once they turn 18 without having to worry about trooping down to town hall to fill out the necessary forms.

AB 30 and similar plans already in place in other states allow for the full application of the NVRA to all citizens using the DMV – young people, just like everyone else should be able to use the DMV’s voter registration resources to register to vote, even if they are doing so a year or two before the election in which they will actually vote.  The NVRA was designed to make the process of registering to vote easier – except, state law and procedures exclude many teenagers from pre-registering, effectively excluding them being able to register at the DMV.  California should pass this law and other states should follow suit.  Young people are the voices of the future-  isn’t it important to get them involved in politics at a young age, so that they can begin to exercise their right to vote?



On Republicans
September 18, 2009, 11:43 am
Filed under: Republicans

Via Andrew:

“I’ve always been a Republican for the traditional principles that have been associated with the Republican party since I became a Republican, when I registered to vote. And that is limited government, individual opportunities, fiscal responsibility, and a strong national defense. So I think those principles have always been a part of the Republican party heritage. And I believe that I reflect those views and I haven’t changed as a Republican. I think more that my party has changed,” -Senator Olympia Snowe.



What Do Politics, DJing, and Ted Kennedy All Have in Common?
September 3, 2009, 1:28 am
Filed under: U.S. Politics

Well… a music video I guess.

Check it out – Crack Brain Zealot for Democracy



Personality and Geography
May 23, 2009, 6:43 pm
Filed under: National Life

From the book, Who’s Your City? via Andrew:

NA_Neurotic_sketch_ii



Republican’s Losses
May 19, 2009, 12:32 pm
Filed under: Republicans, Voters, Youth Vote

Are the Democrats gain?  Possibly – do we have a realignment on our hand?

Take a look at what Gallup’s recent poll says and make your own conclusions:

Gallup

And those Millennials that I am so obsessed with:

_64ph23rykwjjmj_pcz1eg

As was shown earlier, the GOP’s loss in leaned support over this time is evident among nearly every subgroup. The losses are substantial among college graduates, which have shown a decline in GOP support of 10 points. (The losses are even greater — 13 points — among the subset of college graduates with postgraduate educations.) This may reflect in part Barack Obama’s strong appeal to educated voters, a major component of his winning coalitions in both the Democratic primaries and the general election.

Realignment! Realignment!



The Power of Social Media
May 10, 2009, 4:35 am
Filed under: 111th Congress, Democrats, Media

We saw what Obama’s online game did in 2008.

We saw the start of a netroots-based challenge in the Lieberman – Lamont race of 2006.

And we saw the emergence of the blogs and online campaigning with Dean in 2004.

So what does 201o hold for the world of online politics, campaigning, and organizing.  Who will the liberal netroots target?

The answer – right-leaning and weak Democrats.

MoveOn is already attacking Arlen Specter the newest member of the Democratic Party along with six other Democrats on bankruptcy reform legislation that was changed.



The Magic Number
April 28, 2009, 5:12 pm
Filed under: 111th Congress, Democrats

60.

The big news today on the Hill for Democrats, Arlen Spector the Republican senator from PA is switching to the Democratic Party.

He cites the Republican party moving too far to the right and 200,000 Pennsylvanian voters switching to the Democratic Party the last election, although recent poll suggested that Spector, if he ran re-election as a Republican, probably would have lost – only having 39% support leading up to today’s announcement.

With Al Franken and Spector on the Democrats side in the Senate, that brings the Blue total up to 60 voters- a filibuster proof majority.

Oh the things that may be accomplished… to dream, to wish, to receive.

Today is a good day for the Democratic Party!



Republican Tea Parties
April 15, 2009, 11:24 pm
Filed under: 111th Congress, Economy, President Obama, Republicans

Is this what you want your party to stand for?

r-teaforeverrr-huge1

The list of things wrong with these posters is just too long to write out.

But seriously, Republican Party – do you think “Tea Parties” = anti-war protests?  Seriously?  Think again.

Oh and on that note, this is nothing compared to European protests – nice try though.