The Russians are Here!

When we think of the 1960s in which we grew up, aside from the details of our own lives, we think most often of the civil rights movement and the struggle for racial justice that so defined that decade -- not unexpected for three black men from the American South. Others, coming from a different place, might focus on anti-war protests, the counter culture, or the beginnings of the feminist movement. We are confident, however, that every American who lived through that era recalls the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. "The Russians are coming" had a real, fearful meaning.

Russia v. U.S. We thought of the Soviet Union as "Russia." Fifteen countries made up the Soviet Union before it broke up in 1991, but we ignored Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Georgia, and 11 others. Only Russia, the biggest one, mattered. The United States maintained a massive conventional military force, deployed thousands of nuclear missiles, built fall-out shelters, and set up a huge intelligence operation mainly aimed at protecting the country against aggressive acts by "Russia." America devoted a huge portion of its GDP to defending its interests against "Russian" adventurism. In October 1962, a young President even took the world to the brink of nuclear destruction because of the threat posed by "Russian" missiles in Cuba.

This history makes all the more interesting the relatively mild reaction in the United States to reports that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election by hacking into computers of Democrats, then releasing their embarrassing e-mails with the purpose of helping elect Republican Donald Trump. Whatever the differences between the old Soviet Union and current day Russia, until now, a fundamental tenant of American policy, and of our cultural understanding of the world, has been that the United States and Russia have different interests. Right now, the U.S. and Russia differ mightily over the Syrian conflict. Despite business deals and cooperation on the international space station, the two countries have non-aligned world agendas and the societies vary greatly. By and large, Americans haven’t cared much for Russia during most of our lives.

While some members of Congress call for investigations in to this matter, we don’t hear an outcry. One poll showed only about a third of Americans believe the hacking influenced the election. This story hasn’t consumed the mainstream media, talk radio, or social media. Many other controversies went more viral than this one. We dare say the 1992 "nannygate" scandal resulting from Bill Clinton’s intention to nominate corporate lawyer Zoe Baird as Attorney General generated a hotter firestorm than has the possibility Russia interfered in a basic aspect of American democracy. We don’t suggest nobody cares. Speeches have been made and statements released. But, the measured response raises questions we think deserve thought.

Admittedly, the public doesn’t have the full story. The government hasn’t released details of the intelligence showing Russia tried to tip the electoral scales. Much of what we know comes from anonymous sources. We also recognize no one can show that Russian interference determined the outcome. But, as we’ve written, we subscribe to the theory that many little things caused the 2016 result, and this could have been one of them. We emphasize, however, whether the interference changed the outcome isn’t the point. The fact remains that the U.S. intelligence community has determined that a foreign power, one traditionally hostile to American interests, interfered in our electoral process and the country isn’t up in arms about it.

The President’s reserved reaction fits with his "No Drama Obama" persona. He’s said he didn’t talk more about this before the election so as not to look like he was putting his thumb on the scale. He says now that in deciding how much to reveal about what we know and how we know it, he must weigh the effectiveness of a U.S. response against the right of the American people to know the details of something that affects their security and way of life. These considerations, at least facially legitimate, seem to have prevented venom from spewing out of the Obama White House.

Not so Noble We think, however, the muted American reaction stems from other, less noble motives. Dispirited Democrats, mindful of being cast as sore losers and seekers of scape goats, have decided to leave this to their Senators and Representatives to investigate "in due course" while they focus on other things, like picking a new Democratic National Committee Chair and figuring out a winning strategy for future elections. Republicans, giddy with the prospect of controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, want to do nothing that delegitimizes Trump’s victory. Republicans have warmed to Trump, but only because he won, giving them the opportunity for the legislative and executive mischief they’ve so craved the last eight years. No matter how much they hate the Russians, and many of them do, they’re taking Trump’s lead on this.

Trump’s coziness with Russia and its leader, former KGB officer Vladimir Putin, has been well documented and we need not repeat it here. What further evidence do we need than the selection of a Secretary of State who received the Russian Order of Friendship award? Trump’s followers – his true believers – probably agree with him on the merits about the Russians – they’re not our number one enemy and we ought to forge closer ties with them. Traditional Republicans, like Mitt Romney, who don’t buy that at all, kept relatively quiet on this. They don’t want to endanger Trump’s presidency, and their own access to power, by riling up the country about Russian hacking and interference into our election. Self-interest Trumps everything else.

John F. Kennedy, in his 1961 inaugural address, warned that the danger of riding the back of a tiger lies in the possibility of ending up inside. The United States for years applied that axiom to Russian bears. Maybe we still should.

Outrage, anyone?

Attitudes, Behaviors and the 2016 Election

Some time ago, we believed race would diminish as an issue in American life.  We saw the progress made since our 50s childhoods and our coming of age in the 60s.  We read the late 70s/early 80s work of authors like William J. Wilson who wrote of the “declining significance” of race. With the 2008 election of Barack Obama, we reveled in the bright promise of a color blind, post racial nation.

Today, arguably we live in a better world than the one into which the three of us arrived between 1945 and 1951.  But, things we see every day tell us we’ve come to a dark chapter in the book and that discomfort, perhaps even terror, fills the pages ahead.  The complex issues like policing and criminal justice, a frightening electoral outcome, and the stark partisan divide in the country portend, in Martin Luther King’s words, difficult days ahead.

During our formative years, open hostility often characterized interpersonal interactions between whites and blacks.  Whites considered blacks inferior and viewed them with disdain, disgust, and derision. Blacks saw whites as hateful and viewed them with fear, mistrust, and suspicion.

White insults sometimes provoked fierce black reaction.  One of us, for example, acknowledges threatening to physically assault a white college classmate who spouted the ‘N’ word in discussing  a prolific black athlete.  This response, whatever ethical and moral qualms one might express about it now, generated a sense of empowerment.

We also saw another black response to whites – a transactional approach that sought tangible economic or professional benefits.  Blacks acknowledged white people didn’t accept or like them, but whites had things these blacks wanted – jobs, professional training, mentoring – things that made slurs, insults, and put downs bearable.  The notion that “we don’t care about your attitude, it’s your behavior we’re concerned with” summed up this way of dealing with white people. The advantages of doing business with the devil outweighed the discomforts.   

We used this method from time to time.  One of us tolerated a broadcasting mentor who made jokes about the radio station’s “Resident Negro” and the incongruity of designating oneself as “black when you’re really just brown.”  Another of us, in order not to jeopardize a summer job, bit his tongue when confronted with vile characterizations of black women’s private parts.  These insults stung, but we calculated the value gained outweighed the hurt.

We learned recently how much the world has changed, while staying so much the same. Racial hostility rears its head every day in America and blacks and whites still often view each other with the derision, fear, and mistrust we saw as young men.  But, racial insult may now command a very different response.

One of our ministers shared with us an unprompted essay by his 17-year old daughter. This young, bi-racial woman (Asian father/ white mother) wrote of her heartbreak at how verbal assaults on blacks at her school must cause “unimaginable” pain for her black classmates and their families.  That such things occur in America in 2016 surprises us not at all. The difference in her response and both the assertive and transactional approaches we sometimes employed fascinates us.

This young woman, raised in the bosom of a multi-ethnic church, spoke poignantly of how she hoped her God would “reveal the hurt” blacks and other people of color experience when whites say insensitive, hurtful things about “people I love so much and consider my family.”  In her missive, we see how different a world she not only craves but believes she has a right to inhabit.  Her desire that her classmates understand the hurt their words can cause showed us an unwillingness to accept an America in which racial insensitivity represents the norm.

Still, we understand how negatively people might view her response.  Some wail about the evils of “political correctness.”  “Get over it” and “stop being so sensitive” they will say.  Others may respond with admonitions that she “grow up.”  She’s only in for disappointment, they’d contend, if she expects real change in the attitudes of white classmates. Didn’t in 1957 we wonder when such things would stop in schools?

Our young friend’s essay causes us to ask tough questions.  What is the proper response to racial insensitivity?  The aggressive and transactional approaches we used back in the day?  Her heartfelt, spiritual call to our better angels?  Something in between? Were our approaches more “realistic?”  Did we pander? In confronting racism with aggression were we any different than our oppressors?  Did we miss opportunities to teach lessons about the evil of racial animus?

America overcame some aspects of racial discrimination. The laws changed. Blacks can eat in whatever restaurant or sleep in whatever hotel they can afford.  Blacks regularly get jobs they never could before. Some white people will even vote for a black man for President of the United States. So, yes, white behavior changed.

Our young friend’s essay demonstrated, however, that racial animus remains strong in America. Many white attitudes have not changed.  At the most serious level, law enforcement officers still mistreat and kill young black men.  Black people still get shot for being black, even in church.  At a different level – not unimportant, just different – blacks still endure slurs, whites still presume blacks unfit for jobs with no evidence other than skin tone, and high school students still sling racial insults at classmates.

Our young friend’s sincere, spiritual wishes notwithstanding, we fear the hurts she sees her friends of color enduring will sting more often, not less in the next few years.  The outcome of the election enabled at least some of the forces of evil.  Despite calls that our new leader more forcefully denounce the bad acts carried out in his name, no powerful admonition has been forthcoming.  The sincerity of one young woman’s plea compels us to ask how long we must wait.