A Grim Prognosis

Two recent occurrences have me in a pessimistic mood. The first is the Sean Bell case. The second is the continuing furor surrounding the statements and attitudes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. For those who don't know the deal, Sean Bell was killed by three undercover New York City police officers on his wedding day. Bell was at a strip club for his bachelor party, allegedly got involved in an altercation, and was gunned down by the officers who thought he was armed. Wright, meanwhile, has made a number of controversial statements, suggesting that god should damn America for its crimes and that the policies of the government were responsible for 9/11. What links these two events? For me, it is the wholly unbridgeable gulf between the people on either side of these issues. To some, the Bell slaying is the height of injustice, yet another case of unwarranted police aggression towards blacks. To others, what happened that night was tragic, yet justified. The officers did the best they could under the circumstances. And besides, Bell and his friends were 'thugs' with criminal records. Similarly, some see Wright's statements as indicative of a man who hates America and represents all that is wrong with the stereotypical angry black man. Others, though, understand where he is coming from and the anger he feels at the actions of the government.
Unfortunately, there is no Platonic justice or truth to be had. There is no way that those on opposite sides of this divide can be convinced through reflection or rational argument of the validity of their opponents' position. The sad fact is that while we are quick to become indignant at injustices we perceive to have perpetrated upon us, we have little empathy for those who accuse us of injustice towards them. Our self-centered and self-interested notions of truth and justice, it seems to me, doom us to a perpetual combativeness, a society that will always be divided into two camps. And so politics in its most base form will endure.

Some Numbers to Think About

A recent poll shows that 8% of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black man. Consider:

-it's been 143 years, 4 months, and a few days since ratification of the thirteenth amendment, which prohibited slavery. Mississippi, by the way, ratified the amendment in 1995
-it's been just under 54 years since the Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which created the doctrine of "separate but equal." As late as 1963, the governor of Alabama (George Wallace) was blocking blacks from entering a state university
-whites make up 74% of the US population
-in 2004, Bush captured 62 million votes to Kerry's 59 million, winning by 2.4 percentage points
-recent polls have McCain at 45% and Obama at 46% in a hypothetical matchup

Given that it's been roughly seven generations since the end of slavery and two or three since the end of legal segregation, and given the razor thin margins likely to occur in the 2008 election, it may very well be that Obama is "unelectable" if Obama is likely to lose roughly 10% of white voters right off the bat (and that's a conservative estimate: people may be reluctant to tell a pollster their true feelings). It's sad to say, but institutionalized racism and bigotry is still too fresh in this country to have too much hope for a black presidency. Of course, I hope I'm wrong.

Military Media Complex

President Dwight D. Eisenhouser famously warned of the influence of the "military industrial complex" on the fortunes of America. And while his caveat has largely gone unnoticed and unheeded (witness the skyrocketing profits of military contractors), perhaps we citizens will take note of another pernicious partnering in modern government. Turns out the Pentagon mobilized an extensive team of pundits and analysts to sell the war and mislead the public. The media seemed to be an willing, if perhaps ignorant, accomplice. It should be no surprise that Fox news employed the largest number of propagandists. Read the article here.

Follow Up: What Do Voters Want

Check out this article, directly related to my previous post. Turns out the voter who asked about Obama's flag pin is concerned that Obama "takes everything too nonchalantly." According to this voter, Clinton has had too "struggle" for her gains, while Obama has had it easy. I'm not sure there is a tremendous difference in the backgrounds of Clinton and Obama. Both have had a ton of experiences that could reasonably qualify them as "elitists." But why should this matter? When have we, in history, elected a non-privileged individual to the presidency? We should dispense of this myth of the everyman president so we should focus on the issues. And, as I indicated in my earlier post, the media is culpable. Instead of running stories about how Obama or Kerry is an elite, why not feature some stories showing the elite history of politics in this country?

What Do Voters Care About?

I'm sure you saw the voter, who during last night's debate on ABC, asked why Obama did not wear a flag pin on his lapel. Why do voters care about such nonsense? I think it must be one of the following: (1) the voters are using 'cognitive shortcuts' to get a read on the candidates. Cognitive shortcuts allow voters to make inferences about candidates based on particular associations. Flag pin equals patriot. (2) the voters are truly interested in such information. I hope this isn't the case. But if so, such would be one of the flaws of democracy. (3) the voters, by and large, do not care about such issues, but the media accentuate and exacerbate these minor issues, thus making them into larger issues. I'm going with choice (3). Obviously, ABC had the ability to filter and select the questions presented. The media likes easy storylines and quick payoffs, to the detriment of our democracy.