LOOKING AT 2020 BEYOND CANDIDATES: WHAT’S REALLY AT STAKE

A clear distinction has emerged among the three of us in terms of our preferences in the race for the 2020 Democratic

presidential         nomination. We’ve realized the reasons for those differences go beyond merely liking one candidate’s health plan over another’s. What each of us wants in a 2020 Democratic standard bearer reflects our view of where this country should go politically and culturally in the next few years and what the 2020 election stands for as a marker in our politics. Here we offer a first look at that dichotomy (or perhaps, in our case, a trichotomy). We recognize explaining all this may require more than one 980-word blog post.

Woodson:  A Time for Bold Action

The problems we face require more than snip-around-the-edges incrementalism. We need reform of our immigration laws – specifically a change to our family separation policy; a health care system that makes health care affordable to all. The Trump tax cuts for

multi-millionaires must be rolled back. Those revenues should be devoted to development of our roads, bridges, and schools. Our children should have an opportunity for a vocational or college education, similar to how all Americans are now afforded a public primary and secondary education. The criminal justice system  should

be reformed so that charges and sentences are not influenced by the defendant’s ethnicity or economic status.

In convincing some Caucasian Americans their enemies are undeserving black and brown people, President Trump lowered the taxes of the rich and further divided the nation on the basis of race, national origin, and social strata. It is time to address the concerns of all Americans.  These objectives are not inconsistent with Rob’s desires for the nation. 

The interests to which I refer should not wait. Incrementalism has historically meant that the

needs of people of color - namely African Americans - must wait. Roosevelt’s New Deal was good for most white Americans, but in too many instances came at the expense of blacks. Roosevelt even refused to support an anti-lynching bill because he wanted southern white congressman to sup-

port his New Deal legislation. It is time to look out for all our citizens. The country’s leadership must be bold and “walk and chew gum at the same time”.  I do not agree with Rob’s notion that moving forward with a progressive agenda will make the fight for President’s Obama Affordable Care Act look like a “sixth-grade playgroud skirmis". The grade playground skirmish”. The legislation to make these changes has already been passed in the House of Representatives. It just needs to be passed in the Senate and signed by the President. In any case some goals are worth the skirmishes.  

Rob: Get Back to Normal First

While I share most (not all) of Woodson’s policy objectives, I believe the next president has a more pressing obligation. She or he must reinstate normalcy after the disaster of the Trump presidency. I see three things as essential: (1) restore respect for the rule of law; (2) operate the federal government without scandal and daily turmoil; and (3) repair our alliances around the world, thereby protecting our national security in a way consistent with our values and those of our allies.

Woodson’s agenda comes with two significant risks. First, a president seeking enactment of many of these proposals will embroil the nation in bitter partisan wrangling that will make the conflict over President Obama’s effort at passing the Affordable Care Act seem like a sixth-grade playground skirmish. Second, the political

backlash will likely consume that president and make him or her a one termer. Keeping a Democrat in the White House for at least eight years so we can flip the Supreme Court is much too important to sacrifice for the possibility of pipe dream policy proposals that will likely never become law.  For the most part, I’m with my brother Walker on where he wants to go, but first things first.   

Henry: Oh, I See What you’re Saying

Rob likes telling the story of one his first-year law professors who had the admirable quality of patiently listening to mostly incorrect answers given by students called on in class by gently telling them, “Oh, I see what you’re saying.” Professor Smith then steered the class to the right answer by picking out a few things the erring student said and weaving the correct answer into his response. I feel that’s the appropriate reaction to my colleagues. I fear they’re both right and both wrong and I should guide them both to a better place.

I wonder if where Woodson thinks America should go now and where Rob wants to go are that different. Will, fifty years from now,

America look that different under one vision than the other? Rob acknowledges he shares most of Woodson’s policy prescriptions (as do I). He just thinks we have more pressing problems now, that the house is burning down and putting out the fire takes precedence over building a new house.  But, he admits, the new house he’d build looks much like the house Woodson thinks we should start on now. 

 

The danger in Woodson’s do-it-now approach

lies in the risks Rob identifies – turmoil and potential backlash. The danger in Rob’s incrementalism lies in the injustice of putting off things that keep get-

ting put off.  As Martin Luther King, Jr told white ministers in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, the well-meaning moderate advocating patience often poses the greatest obstacle to justice. Civil rights couldn’t wait and some of the things Woodson thinks we should tackle now shouldn’t wait either.

 

Endless Conversation

We’ve only scratched the surface of this topic. Exploring ideas and differences like this forms the rationale for why we do this each week. Our masthead says “Endless Conversation.” The need for exploring topics like this demonstrates why that’s more than a slogan.         

THE DOLLARWAY SYNDROME: RACE, INDIVIDUAL GOODWILL, and the CONTINUING STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY

This time Rob introduces an idea he's developing for a book. We'll explore it with him over the coming months.

Fifty plus years ago, I first observed something in American race relations I've never forgotten. I now call what I saw the Dollarway Syndrome. I noticed it while attending Dollarway, the Pine Bluff, Arkansas high school from which I graduated in 1969. I didn't call my observation the Dollarway Syndrome then. Naming it and getting an understanding of it required college, graduate school, law school, and the ensuing 50 years of living. Even though I can now define and describe it, explain its manifestations, and offer conjecture about what it means, I continue grappling with why it exists and how we deal with it individually and as a nation.

A Definition 

The Dollarway Syndrome is the inclination of white Americans to treat individual  black Americans with respect, kindness, civility, and compassion while, at the same time, supporting and espousing political and social policies and outcomes that oppress black people. After a rough start, at Dollarway I found acceptance, companionship, and caring. High school for me turned out like high school should — a time of personal growth and exploration punctuated by special memories, with a few enduring friendships thrown in for good measure.  I also saw and experienced insensitivity, cruelty, and hostility directed at an entire people. Many of my classmates loudly expressed indifference or even glee at the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy and championed the political causes of George Wallace and other Southern human right violators.

King and Kennedy - 1963

In the intervening years, I've seen this duality in the workplace, sports, business, interpersonal relations, and other facets of American life. That such phenomena exist and thrive remains disconcerting. Exploring this now represents a late-in-life effort at getting my arms around it and offering a perspective those who've observed and experienced the Dollarway Syndrome might find helpful.

Changing Times

Since I noticed the Dollarway Syndrome, I've seen great racial change in America, including the end of de jure segregation, a rising black middle class, election of the first black President of the United States, and increasing incidence and acceptance of interracial marriage. These and other changes in America's racial picture signal progress toward equity and a just society. Nevertheless, the United 

States remains a nation troubled by racial discord, with significant gaps between blacks and whites in wealth, income, educational achievement, professional advancement, political strength, and other indicators of status and power. The Dollarway Syndrome persists and, in my view, promotes marginal progress while preventing real equity.

What I've seen also counsels that I accept the challenge of exploring how those who care about creating a just society can make the Dollarway Syndrome serve that goal. White people otherwise hostile to black political and social progress, in their respectful and civil treatment of individual blacks, show a capacity for finding common ground with those seeking societal change. Woodson argues racial 

justice requires finding allies who can see improving America's racial landscape as in their best interest or in the best interest of the country. They view it that way despite the continuing prevalence of partisanship, racial isolation, and tribalism. Woodson's notion prompts an important question: How do blacks and whites form alliances that can extract America from the racial ruts in which we've found ourselves since my Dollarway days?

The last ten years have shown us hope and despair on matters of race. Barack Obama's election in 2008 provided  

the tantalizing, if ultimately false, hope of a colorblind society. During Trump’s first years, we've seen ugliness we thought we'd left behind. Obama's ascension and what's happened early in the time of Trump, signal opportunity and challenge. They show what we can do and what we haven't done. By looking through the prism of the Dollarway Syndrome and its maddening duality, perhaps we can see how we build on the opportunities while tackling the challenges.

The Personal Part

My history affects my view of this. I was born at the tail end of

the Jim Crow era and grew up in a small, segregated Arkansas town. I experienced the good fortune of being the child of educated parents who cherished learning, promoted hard work, and, by example, steered me away from hate. They kept their eyes open for injustice, but believed in the promise of better days and taught me optimism, not hopelessness. Partly because of them, I kept seeking education, which has served me well and shielded me from much of the world's harshness.

Race, however, always lurked in the background of my life. What I experienced and observed at Dollarway never left my consciousness. Things have changed, but, then again, they've stayed the same. That fact informs and defines my exploration of the Dollarway Syndrome.

Perhaps readers have experience with the Dollarway syndrome.  We invite them to share.

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.