RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: An Open Letter to My Sister, Miss Angela Davis Print
Sunday, 06 August 2017 11:12

Baldwin writes: "One might have hoped that, by this hour, the very sight of chains on black flesh, or the very sight of chains, would be so intolerable a sight for the American people, and so unbearable a memory, that they would themselves spontaneously rise up and strike off the manacles. But, no."

James Baldwin. (photo: Ted Thai/Getty Images)
James Baldwin. (photo: Ted Thai/Getty Images)


An Open Letter to My Sister, Miss Angela Davis

By James Baldwin, The New York Review of Books

06 August 17

 

ear Sister:

One might have hoped that, by this hour, the very sight of chains on black flesh, or the very sight of chains, would be so intolerable a sight for the American people, and so unbearable a memory, that they would themselves spontaneously rise up and strike off the manacles. But, no, they appear to glory in their chains; now, more than ever, they appear to measure their safety in chains and corpses. And so, Newsweek, civilized defender of the indefensible, attempts to drown you in a sea of crocodile tears (“it remained to be seen what sort of personal liberation she had achieved”) and puts you on its cover, chained.

You look exceedingly alone—as alone, say, as the Jewish housewife in the boxcar headed for Dachau, or as any one of our ancestors, chained together in the name of Jesus, headed for a Christian land.

Well. Since we live in an age in which silence is not only criminal but suicidal, I have been making as much noise as I can, here in Europe, on radio and television—in fact, have just returned from a land, Germany, which was made notorious by a silent majority not so very long ago. I was asked to speak on the case of Miss Angela Davis, and did so. Very probably an exercise in futility, but one must let no opportunity slide.

I am something like twenty years older than you, of that generation, therefore, of which George Jackson ventures that “there are no healthy brothers—none at all.” I am in no way equipped to dispute this speculation (not, anyway, without descending into what, at the moment, would be irrelevant subtleties) for I know too well what he means. My own state of health is certainly precarious enough. In considering you, and Huey, and George and (especially) Jonathan Jackson, I began to apprehend what you may have had in mind when you spoke of the uses to which we could put the experience of the slave. What has happened, it seems to me, and to put it far too simply, is that a whole new generation of people have assessed and absorbed their history, and, in that tremendous action, have freed themselves of it and will never be victims again. This may seem an odd, indefensibly impertinent and insensitive thing to say to a sister in prison, battling for her life—for all our lives. Yet, I dare to say, for I think that you will perhaps not misunderstand me, and I do not say it, after all, from the position of a spectator.

I am trying to suggest that you—for example—do not appear to be your father’s daughter in the same way that I am my father’s son. At bottom, my father’s expectations and mine were the same, the expectations of his generation and mine were the same; and neither the immense difference in our ages nor the move from the South to the North could alter these expectations or make our lives more viable. For, in fact, to use the brutal parlance of that hour, the interior language of that despair, he was just a nigger—a nigger laborer preacher, and so was I. I jumped the track but that’s of no more importance here, in itself, than the fact that some poor Spaniards become rich bull fighters, or that some poor black boys become rich—boxers, for example. That’s rarely, if ever, afforded the people more than a great emotional catharsis, though I don’t mean to be condescending about that, either. But when Cassius Clay became Muhammed Ali and refused to put on that uniform (and sacrificed all that money!) a very different impact was made on the people and a very different kind of instruction had begun.

The American triumph—in which the American tragedy has always been implicit—was to make black people despise themselves. When I was little I despised myself, I did not know any better. And this meant, albeit unconsciously, or against my will, or in great pain, that I also despised my father. And my mother. And my brothers. And my sisters. Black people were killing each other every Saturday night out on Lenox Avenue, when I was growing up; and no one explained to them, or to me, that it was intended that they should; that they were penned where they were, like animals, in order that they should consider themselves no better than animals. Everything supported this sense of reality, nothing denied it: and so one was ready, when it came time to go to work, to be treated as a slave. So one was ready, when human terrors came, to bow before a white God and beg Jesus for salvation—this same white God who was unable to raise a finger to do so little as to help you pay your rent, unable to be awakened in time to help you save your child!

There is always, of course, more to any picture than can speedily be perceived and in all of this—groaning and moaning, watching, calculating, clowning, surviving, and outwitting, some tremendous strength was nevertheless being forged, which is part of our legacy today. But that particular aspect of our journey now begins to be behind us. The secret is out: we are men!

But the blunt, open articulation of this secret has frightened the nation to death. I wish I could say, “to life,” but that is much to demand of a disparate collection of displaced people still cowering in their wagon trains and singing “Onward Christian Soldiers.” The nation, if America is a nation, is not in the least prepared for this day. It is a day which the Americans never expected or desired to see, however piously they may declare their belief in “progress and democracy.” These words, now, on American lips, have become a kind of universal obscenity: for this most unhappy people, strong believers in arithmetic, never expected to be confronted with the algebra of their history.

One way of gauging a nation’s health, or of discerning what it really considers to be its interests—or to what extent it can be considered as a nation as distinguished from a coalition of special interests—is to examine those people it elects to represent or protect it. One glance at the American leaders (or figure-heads) conveys that America is on the edge of absolute chaos, and also suggests the future to which American interests, if not the bulk of the American people, appear willing to consign the blacks. (Indeed, one look at our past conveys that.) It is clear that for the bulk of our (nominal) countrymen, we are all expendable. And Messrs. Nixon, Agnew, Mitchell, and Hoover, to say nothing, of course, of the Kings’ Row basket case, the winning Ronnie Reagan, will not hesitate for an instant to carry out what they insist is the will of the people.

But what, in America, is the will of the people? And who, for the above-named, are the people? The people, whoever they may be, know as much about the forces which have placed the above-named gentlemen in power as they do about the forces responsible for the slaughter in Vietnam. The will of the people, in America, has always been at the mercy of an ignorance not merely phenomenal, but sacred, and sacredly cultivated: the better to be used by a carnivorous economy which democratically slaughters and victimizes whites and blacks alike. But most white Americans do not dare admit this (though they suspect it) and this fact contains mortal danger for the blacks and tragedy for the nation.

Or, to put it another way, as long as white Americans take refuge in their whiteness—for so long as they are unable to walk out of this most monstrous of traps—they will allow millions of people to be slaughtered in their name, and will be manipulated into and surrender themselves to what they will think of—and justify—as a racial war. They will never, so long as their whiteness puts so sinister a distance between themselves and their own experience and the experience of others, feel themselves sufficiently human, sufficiently worthwhile, to become responsible for themselves, their leaders, their country, their children, or their fate. They will perish (as we once put it in our black church) in their sins—that is, in their delusions. And this is happening, needless to say, already, all around us.

Only a handful of the millions of people in this vast place are aware that the fate intended for you, Sister Angela, and for George Jackson, and for the numberless prisoners in our concentration camps—for that is what they are—is a fate which is about to engulf them, too. White lives, for the forces which rule in this country, are no more sacred than black ones, as many and many a student is discovering, as the white American corpses in Vietnam prove. If the American people are unable to contend with their elected leaders for the redemption of their own honor and the lives of their own children, we, the blacks, the most rejected of the Western children, can expect very little help at their hands: which, after all, is nothing new. What the Americans do not realize is that a war between brothers, in the same cities, on the same soil, is not a racial war but a civil war. But the American delusion is not only that their brothers all are white but that the whites are all their brothers.

So be it. We cannot awaken this sleeper, and God knows we have tried. We must do what we can do, and fortify and save each other—we are not drowning in an apathetic self-contempt, we do feel ourselves sufficiently worthwhile to contend even with inexorable forces in order to change our fate and the fate of our children and the condition of the world! We know that a man is not a thing and is not to be placed at the mercy of things. We know that air and water belong to all mankind and not merely to industrialists. We know that a baby does not come into the world merely to be the instrument of someone else’s profit. We know that democracy does not mean the coercion of all into a deadly—and, finally, wicked—mediocrity but the liberty for all to aspire to the best that is in him, or that has ever been.

We know that we, the blacks, and not only we, the blacks, have been, and are, the victims of a system whose only fuel is greed, whose only god is profit. We know that the fruits of this system have been ignorance, despair, and death, and we know that the system is doomed because the world can no longer afford it—if, indeed, it ever could have. And we know that, for the perpetuation of this system, we have all been mercilessly brutalized, and have been told nothing but lies, lies about ourselves and our kinsmen and our past, and about love, life, and death, so that both soul and body have been bound in hell.

The enormous revolution in black consciousness which has occurred in your generation, my dear sister, means the beginning or the end of America. Some of us, white and black, know how great a price has already been paid to bring into existence a new consciousness, a new people, an unprecedented nation. If we know, and do nothing, we are worse than the murderers hired in our name.

If we know, then we must fight for your life as though it were our own—which it is—and render impassable with our bodies the corridor to the gas chamber. For, if they take you in the morning, they will be coming for us that night.

Therefore: peace.

Brother James


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
It All Begins With thIt All Begins With the People in the Streetse People in the Streets Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Sunday, 06 August 2017 08:57

Pierce writes: "All week, the South Lawn of the Capitol had been the scene of protests of varying sizes, all of them directed at the U.S. Senate for the purposes of demonstrating how unpopular were that body's attempts to slice and dice the Affordable Care Act."

A victory on healthcare. (photo: Getty Images)
A victory on healthcare. (photo: Getty Images)


It All Begins With the People in the Streets

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

06 August 17


A victory on healthcare.

ll week, the South Lawn of the Capitol had been the scene of protests of varying sizes, all of them directed at the U.S. Senate for the purposes of demonstrating how unpopular were that body's attempts to slice and dice the Affordable Care Act. There were protests in Upper Senate Park, too, across Constitution Avenue, the home of the world's most off-key carillon. On Wednesday evening, there was a big rally there supporting Planned Parenthood. Both Senator Al Franken and Senator Professor Warren spoke at that one. At odd moments, I'd wander out and talk to the people gathered there.

They were from all over the country. Some of them had been very sick. Some of them still were. All of them were very uneasy about their personal future. On Tuesday night, when it looked like Mitch McConnell had won his gamble against representative democracy, there were 15 people on the South Lawn, at midnight, chanting up at the empty Capitol. They were the stakes in McConnell's gamble, and they were shouting at a vacant building. This was a scene that seemed suitable, and sadly symbolic, to the moment at hand.

All that changed early Friday morning, when 51 senators raided McConnell's game. You could hear the cheers from outside in the halls of the Senate. Various senators, including SPW again, went outside and congratulated the people on the South Lawn. The last (for now) attempt to chloroform the ACA formally through legislation had failed. (Watch, however, how the campaign to sabotage it ramps up now, led by the White House, whose petulant occupant will gladly pull your temple down on his head.) As I walked back into the Capitol, what came to mind were all the people I have heard over the years who told me that political activism was a sucker's game, a rigged wheel, a space for performance art with an audience of rich people. I agreed with a lot of the last part of that, and still do. But there are only two ways to go, even if you accept the latter part of the premise. You can accept that political activism is a sucker's game and give up, or wrap yourself in the robes of ideological purity as though they were suits of armor. Or, you can accept that political activism is a sucker's game and then engage in political activism to make it less so. And, as I went back and forth between the Senate chamber and the South Lawn in the dark of the early morning on Friday, I thought a lot about Alaska.

In 2010, the American people elected the worst Congress in the history of the republic. (This distinction held until 2014 when, against all odds, they elected a worse one.) One of the reasons this happened was that the well-financed AstroTurfed Tea Party movement took down a number of Republican incumbents in primary elections in favor of an odd lot of utter whackadoos. (This is how we got Sharron Angle's running against Harry Reid on a platform of putting America's currency back on the poultry standard.) Nowhere was this more clear than in Alaska, where incumbent Lisa Murkowski lost her primary to a militia-tinged meathead named Joe Miller. (Among his other deeply held positions, Miller was quite complimentary toward the late East Germany for how effectively its wall worked.) Instead of walking away, Murkowski organized a write-in campaign to run in the general election. Granted, it was better funded than most such efforts, but it was still the first successful write-in campaign for the Senate since 1954.

(And, let's be fair, "Murkowski" is tough sledding for a write-in candidate. In fact, one of the causes of action in Miller's subsequent endless litigation of the results was trying to disqualify any ballot on which Murkowski's name was misspelled.)

And that happened to be how Lisa Murkowski was even in the Senate at all this week to stand firm against the pressure from her caucus and against clumsy threats from down at Camp Runamuck. That happened to be how she was even in the chamber at all to stick to John McCain like his shadow through the long run-up to the climactic vote. That happened to be how she was in the Senate at all—because, in 2010, a lot of people in Alaska went the extra mile to keep her there. That's how political activism works—one little ripple seven years earlier becomes a kind of wave at the most unexpected time.

And that is the final and lasting lesson of this week in Washington. The primary force driving the events of Thursday night and Friday morning was the energy and (yes) persistence of all those people who swamped town hall meetings, who wrote, or called, or e-mailed various congresscritters to show them what real political pressure felt like. I remember watching town halls in Maine, to which people drove hundreds of miles to tell Susan Collins what they thought. Those people bucked up vulnerable Democratic senators so that Chuck Schumer could count on a united Congress.

They brought pressure on Republican governors, too. People like Brian Sandoval in Nevada and John Kasich in Ohio were handed put-up-or-shut-up choices from their constituents. Perhaps the most significant Republican governor was Doug Ducey of Arizona, whom McCain repeatedly said he would consult before voting. Late on Thursday afternoon, Ducey came out strongly against the bill. But it all begins with the people who put themselves in the streets, and the people in wheelchairs who got roughed up on Capitol Hill, and all those impassioned voices on the phone, just as Lisa Murkowski's continued political survival depended on all those Alaskans who took the extra time to write in her name on a ballot.

We all decide, ultimately and individually, if the country is worth saving, one heavy lift at a time, knowing that, if the country is worth saving, we never will come to the last of them.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Black People Aren't Keeping White Americans Out of College. Rich People Are. Print
Sunday, 06 August 2017 08:42

Emba writes: "The 200th day of Donald Trump's presidency draws near, and his legislative failures have become all too apparent. What better time to change the conversation and re-energize the base? And what better way than by raising the lightning rod that is affirmative action?"

A rally in support of affirmative action. (photo: Tom Williams/AP)
A rally in support of affirmative action. (photo: Tom Williams/AP)


Black People Aren't Keeping White Americans Out of College. Rich People Are.

By Christine Emba, The Washington Post

06 August 17

 

he 200th day of Donald Trump’s presidency draws near, and his legislative failures have become all too apparent. What better time to change the conversation and re-energize the base? And what better way than by raising the lightning rod that is affirmative action?

According to a memo leaked to the New York Times, the Trump administration is planning to redirect Justice Department resources to investigate and potentially sue colleges that use “intentional race-based discrimination” in admissions. The project was quickly understood to be targeting affirmative action policies that many on the right see as “discriminating” against white applicants — in particular, ones that might give black and Latino students an edge. This move comes despite the Supreme Court upholding the use of affirmative action to diversify campuses just last year.

Justice Department officials attempted to play down the initiative after the story broke, stating that they planned to investigate a single complaint involving Asian American applicants, not whites. But it barely mattered. The message was sent.

Affirmative action is a consistent hobbyhorse on the right because it combines real anxieties with compelling falsehoods. College admission — especially to the elite institutions most often hit with affirmative action lawsuits — has become more selective and is an increasingly important factor in the creation and perpetuation of wealth and opportunity. Elite colleges serve as steppingstones into politics, finance, law and Silicon Valley; higher incomes tend to follow. Even so, 80 percent of top students who apply are accepted into at least one elite school, if not their No. 1 choice. But measures that help historically disadvantaged populations to take advantage of the same opportunity are nonetheless characterized as zero-sum.

What is essential to understand is that it’s not a vast crowd of black or brown people keeping white Americans out of the colleges of their choice, especially not the working-class white Americans among whom Trump finds his base of support. In fact, income tips the scale much more than race: At 38 top colleges in the United States, more students come from the top 1 percent of income earners than from the bottom 60 percent. Really leveling the admissions playing field, assuming the Trump administration actually cares about doing so, would involve much broader efforts to redistribute wealth and power. A focus on fringe campaigns against affirmative action suggests it does not.

Addressing inequalities in K-12 education, for instance, could help at-risk students of all races increase their chances of attending a top college — or any college at all. Policies such as property-tax-based funding for schools and the curiously slanted allocation of talented teachers (in Louisiana, for instance, a student in the poorest quartile of schools is almost three times as likely to be taught by an ineffective teacher as a student in the wealthiest quartile is) give a tremendous boost in college admissions to children from high-income families, often at the expense of their lower-income peers.

And right up to the application-writing doorstep, the beneficiaries of the biggest extra edge in admissions are more often than not the children of alumni. At Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Georgetown and Stanford universities, the acceptance rate for legacy applicants is between two and three times higher than the general admissions rate. Pressing universities to drop legacy preferences, following the example of other elite schools such as the University of Oxford and University of Cambridge, could free up spots for those without that built-in advantage. Trump’s own wealthy-parent-sponsored education at the University of Pennsylvania, followed by the subsequent admission of three of his four adult children, makes that particular initiative seem unlikely.

In many ways, the Trump Justice Department’s proposed attack on affirmative action is a microcosm of how the president won the 2016 election and continues to maintain a base of support. First, Trump taps into a mainstream concern, one tied to how America’s economic system is changing and how some individuals are left at the margin: Employment? Immigration? College? Take your pick. Then, instead of addressing the issue in a way that embraces both its complexity and well-established research, officials opt for simplistic talking points known to inflame an already agitated base: Immigrants are sneaking into the country and stealing your jobs! Minorities are pushing you out of college!

The Trump administration assumes that picking race-focused fights is the most successful way to distract from its failures and to pander to a grievance-inspired base. The level of support for this latest attempt may prove it right.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
America's Long Tradition of Rejecting Immigrants Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=31583"><span class="small">Jack Schwartz, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Sunday, 06 August 2017 08:38

Schwartz writes: "There is a subtext to Miller's admonition: That the Statue of Liberty does not celebrate a land of immigrants but is rather a memorial to republican virtue."

'By Miller's new standard, many, if not most, of the immigrants who did reach our shores in the past century and change would have been turned away.' (image: The Daily Beast)
'By Miller's new standard, many, if not most, of the immigrants who did reach our shores in the past century and change would have been turned away.' (image: The Daily Beast)


America's Long Tradition of Rejecting Immigrants

By Jack Schwartz, The Daily Beast

06 August 17

 

hen President Trump’s policy adviser Stephen Miller reminded CNN’s White House correspondent Jim Acosta that Emma Lazarus’s poem, “The New Colossus,” enshrined at the base of Miss Liberty was “actually not part of the original statue,” he was correct as far as he went. Frederic-Auguste Bartoldi’s bronze monument was created in 1876 as a gift from France to mark the centennial of American Independence. It wasn’t until a decade later that the statue was dedicated after a popular subscription campaign to pay for the pedestal.

In the intervening period a sea change had occurred in the national origins of America’s immigrants, shifting from natives of Northern Europe to those from the Continent’s Southern and Eastern reaches. In the 40 years between 1880 and 1920 more than 20 million immigrants arrived in this country. Millions of Italians, Jews and Slavs arrived at the port of New York alone, most of them bearing little more than memories of a woeful past and dreams of a hopeful future.

It was this mixed flood of striving, struggling humanity that Emma Lazarus evoked in her sonnet inscribed on a plaque at the statue. It was Miss Liberty’s torch that was the first thing “the huddled masses” encountered on reaching our shores. Whatever Bartoldi intended, the torch had become a beacon of hope for them. They, and their heirs, would repay the nation in full. Original Intent had been overtaken by history.

There is a subtext to Miller’s admonition: That the Statue of Liberty does not celebrate a land of immigrants but is rather a memorial to republican virtue. The object is to divorce the idea of liberty from foreign taint. Implicit in this message is that our liberties are threatened by alien incursions. It is at the heart of a nativist agenda that harkens back to the anti-Irish Know Nothing agitation of the 19th century and continued spasmodically throughout our history.

The Gilded Age saw the growth of the Immigration Restriction League which tried to impose literacy tests on immigrants as a means of excluding the unwanted aliens. (This came at virtually the same time that racist legislatures in the South were utilizing literacy tests as a means of keeping blacks from the polling booths.) Although thwarted by presidential vetoes, nativists finally succeeded in passing a literacy test for immigrants in 1917, a prologue to the racially motivated quota system of the early 1920’s that stifled immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. It wasn’t until 1965 that Congress replaced nationality quotas with a system that allowed Americans to sponsor relatives from abroad. The result over the next 50 years was a preponderance of immigrants arriving not from Europe but Latin America, the West Indies, Asia and Africa. Which prompted a recrudescence of restrictionism.

President Trump’s current proposal to cut legal immigration in half is in keeping with this history of nativist resurgence. In fact, Miller, by embracing the idea that immigrants be required to speak English, is doing the former restrictionists one better. They had only insisted that immigrants be literate in at least one tongue, not limited to English. Miller has upped the ante.

By his standard many, if not most, immigrants to our shores would have been turned away.

It was assumed that they would learn English once they arrived, as most did. But not all. Swedish immigrants to Minnesota in the 19th Century insisted on maintaining church and Bible in their native tongue. Immigrants to the Lower East Side learned English in fits and starts, the younger ones adapting more readily than their elders. Italian coal miners read newspapers such as Il Martello and Jewish garment workers pored over The Forverts. The foreign-language press was a staple of immigrant communities many of whose members had little or no English It was their children who fully assimilated.

Prescott Hall, a leader of the Immigration Restrictionist League in the early 20th century, outraged by President Taft’s veto of an immigration bill imposing literacy tests on immigrants, declared: “To hell with Jews, Jesuits and steamships.”

Updating this a bit to replace the aforementioned with Mexicans and Muslims, we have a fairly concise picture of Donald Trump’s immigration policy. His campaign rhetoric to “get rid of them” leaves little doubt about his feelings on the subject. By this stance Trump is both channeling and stoking the fears of an aggrieved segment of working-class whites who feel threatened by a demographic wave. It is in keeping with a long tradition of auguries warning against the national lifeblood being contaminated by the virus of immigration. As the social scientist Robert Mayo Smith succinctly put the case in 1890: “It is scarcely possible that by taking the dregs of Europe we shall produce a people of high social intelligence and morality.”

What followed was a nativist campaign vilifying immigrants: Italians were a criminal element. Jews were subversives. Both brought disease: Italians were said to be responsible for a polio epidemic, Jews for tuberculosis—variations on an earlier deprecation of the famine-fleeing Irish, accused of “rum and Romanism” as well as bringing typhus on their coffin ships. Demonization was critical to the nativist agenda.

The specifics changed with the times and the targets but the nature remained the same.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 effectively ended immigration from China and barred Chinese from becoming citizens. It was not repealed until 1943. By then the U.S. Government was rounding up the Japanese-American Nisei and sending them to internment camps during World War II. “Jobs” provided the rationale for the first and “Security” for the second, but at their heart was racism. All three still obtain.

Trump’s Muslim ban was invoked in the name of security but no terrorist has emerged from the seven nations he proscribed. Rather, four of the 19 terrorists of 9/11 came from the Trump-friendly regimes of Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates; the other 15 came from Saudi Arabia, where President Trump was recently regally entertained and where he’s had business dealings. None of the 9/11 terrorists slipped across the Mexican border. They arrived by air bearing visas, and they had a good enough command of English to accomplish their mission.

As for protecting American workers, most economists see no link between curbing immigration and creating more jobs at home. Rather, they tell us that immigration increases economic growth. Trump nevertheless insists that his proposed legislation “demonstrates our compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first.”

But how does his proposal do so? By favoring high-skilled immigrants he would bring in the very people who would be taking jobs from American citizens. The immigrants brought in to Florida by Disney on H1-B visas replaced American workers who were forced to train them as they were sent packing. Trump’s reasoning defies its own logic. The occupations that most immigrants fill today are low-skilled jobs in agriculture, hotel maintenance (including at many Trump properties) and domestic service that most Americans don’t want. Trump is comparing apples and oranges.

While Disney workers may be displaced by high-tech immigrants, few of them would want to take jobs as sugar cutters in the Florida cane fields. How many Americans are willing to volunteer for work as grape pickers, laborers in the dangerous meat-packing industry or care-givers to the very old and the very young? As Mayor Koch once said, without illegal immigrants, the hotel industry in New York would collapse. These low-skilled immigrants are not taking work from Americans.

There is a complete disconnect in Trump’s reasoning. Americans have been losing jobs because of technology, globalization and outsourcing. A reasonable response is retraining, infrastructure and business incentives; not exclusion. As for Trump’s professed compassion for American working families, he might do better to display it by supporting a higher minimum wage and curbing the union-busting proclivities of his minions.

So if jobs and security as restrictionist rationales don’t hold up under scrutiny, what’s left?

I suspect Americans would be offended at Stephen Miller’s symbolic disparagement of Lady Liberty as a beacon that brought opportunity to their own forebears. But for many older Americans, our national myth says the earlier “European” immigration was a good wave. The problem is with the new immigration wave, after 1965. Although these later immigrants, like their predecessors, are strivers who through their efforts, and their children, contribute to the growth of America, they are different.

Collectively, they hail from populations of darker hues. Whatever their success at assimilating, this creates a cultural conflict that breeds suspicion and resentment among some of the native-born. Trump’s ploy to favor the high-skilled among them, although it poses a real economic challenge, is reassuring culturally, since it allows in the relatively “sanitized” and keeps out the unwashed—although the latter pose less threat to the jobs that Americans would compete for.

Trump should be congratulated in his candor for at last going public with the not-so-hidden agenda of restrictionists these many years. It was not illegal immigrants they were after, but all of them. Illegality was a stalking horse to curb immigration without being called a racist. With Miller’s call to cut down on legal immigration, too, the fig leaf has now been removed.

In this context it might be well to remember the words of one immigrant about his fellow passengers’ first view of the Statue of Liberty: “women weeping for joy, men falling on their knees in thanksgiving.”

Tyler Anbinder, in his important study, “City of Dreams,” writes: “The term ‘liberty’ perfectly encapsulated the reasons they had come to America. Liberty from hunger, liberty from fear, liberty from violence, liberty to pursue any occupation, liberty to live where they chose, and political liberty—these were the motives that had driven this extraordinary mass of humanity to the United States.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Al Gore: 'It's Time to Get Rid of the Electoral College' Print
Saturday, 05 August 2017 14:27

Romano writes: “On HBO’s Real Time Friday night, Bill Maher reminded his guest, Al Gore, of something the former vice president said regarding climate change: “We have to, if we’re going to fix climate, we have to fix our democracy first."

When it comes to convincing climate change deniers, Al Gore says,
When it comes to convincing climate change deniers, Al Gore says, "Mother Nature is more persuasive than the scientific community." (photo: Claire Harbage/NPR)


Al Gore: 'It's Time to Get Rid of the Electoral College'

By Nick Romano, Entertainment Weekly

05 August 17


The former vice president told Bill Maher his ideas for saving American democracy

n HBO’s Real Time Friday night, Bill Maher reminded his guest, Al Gore, of something the former vice president said regarding climate change: “We have to, if we’re going to fix climate, we have to fix our democracy first.” For Gore, that means both abolishing the electoral college and cleansing Washington of “big money.”

Maher compared Gore’s popular vote count in the 2000 presidential election to Hillary Clinton’s in 2016. Gore surpassed George W. Bush by approximately 500,000 votes, but lost the electoral college. Clinton bested Donald Trump by nearly 3 million votes, but lost the election for the same reason.

“This trend is not going in the right direction,” Maher remarked.

Asked how to stop the pattern of Democrats losing the presidency despite having the most votes, Gore said, “Well, I do think it’s time to get rid of the electoral college and go to a popular vote for president.” He added, “But even more importantly than that, we have to get big money out of politics. The lobbyists and the fat-cat contributors hacked our democracy before [Vladimir] Putin hacked our democracy, and we need to defend it and put the people back in control — and we can do that.”

While Gore quipped back at Maher for joking about how he lost Florida on the campaign trail (“Actually, I think I carried Florida,” he said), he’s diverting his efforts to combating climate change.

The documentary An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, which slams President Trump’s denial of climate change, is currently playing in theaters. Gore spoke to Maher about his conversation with the current POTUS at Trump Tower. “I [also] talked to the then-president-elect, and that conversation continued after he went into the White House, and I thought there was a chance he might come to his senses — but I was wrong,” he said.

Trump announced in June his plans to remove the U.S. from the Paris Accords. “I really was concerned that some other countries might use that as an excuse to pull out themselves,” Gore continued, “but the very next day, the entire rest of the world redoubled their commitment to the Paris Agreement as a way of saying, ‘We’ll show you, Mr. Trump.'”

Watch Gore’s chat with Maher above.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 Next > End >>

Page 1558 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN