A DEEPER DIVE INTO THE N-WORD: DISTURBING HISTORY/TROUBLING PRESENT

In our last post we expressed the idea that perhaps today’s racists should abandon their fake civility and speak like they think and act. We noted thatcurrent day racists don’t regularly use the n-word in public, unlike their more obviously racist predecessors, who often did. The thought occurred to us that we should take a deeper dive into the history of this racial slur. Maybe we could explain there isn’t any difference between the fake civility of Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and Fox News host Tucker Carlson and 1960s era segregationists like Mississippi Senator Jim Eastland, South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, and Alabama Governor George Wallace. The words differ, but the policies are the same – voter suppression, gerrymandering, and fearmongering that prevent the accumulation of black (and brown) political power and quash challenges to white supremacy.

 

‘The Atom Bomb of Racial Slurs’

In the O.J. Simpson trial, prosecutor Christopher Darden called the n-word “the filthiest, nastiest word in the English Language.” One British Member of Parliament (MP) termed it “the most offensive word in English.”  Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy dubbed it the “atomic bomb of racial slurs” because “if you want to put somebody down, analogize them to the [n-word].”  These characterizations of the n-word haven’t stopped its use in contemporary society, on either side of the Atlantic.

Just in 2017, Diane Abbott, a Labor Party MP of African descent, described being repeatedly referred to by the n-word on social media and in e-mails from members of the public.  In the United States in 2016 a Charlotte, North Carolina television journalist was reporting on a hurricane when a man walked by and dropped the n-word on him. Donald Trump’s election as president spurred numerous accounts of racial slurs, including the n-word, being hurled at public school students.

 

History

Where did the n-word come from and how did it become the slur it’s now recognized as?  Scholars seemingly agree that the word originated around 1619 with the arrival of the first African slaves in what’s now the United States. The slaves were referred to by the Spanish and Portuguese term for “black.” The word—N-I-G-G-U-H-S—for a time was seen as merely descriptive, but before long it became derogatory. By the 1820s and 1830s, white people had begun using it as a way of admonishing children not to engage in certain behavior. It became a widely recognized epithet aimed at making black people feel inferior and unworthy. As one British professor observed, “It’s really tied into the idea that African people aren’t really human beings.”

 

Substitutes

It’s clear that much of the public now won’t stand

for use  of the n-word. The BBC, for example, received over 18,600 complaints about a July 2020 story that included the word in an account of a racially aggravated attack. Scrubbing the word from accepted public discourse, however, hasn’t prevented racists from getting their racial message across. Consider:

•       In 2014 then-National Football League star Richard Sherman noted that he’d been called a “thug” and “ghetto” for a rant he went on about events in an NFL game.  Sherman said such terms had become “the accepted way of calling somebody the n-word.”

•       Beginning in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan, code words like “welfare queen” in essence became a surrogate for the n-word as conservative political figures put a black face on abuse of public assistance programs.

•       “States’ rights” was a favorite term of southern politicians in the ‘60s in opposing civil rights measures. Reagan gave that term new life by opening his 1980 general election campaign in Mississippi in the same county where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. The n-word wasn’t used in his speech, but it was an undercurrent of his message.

•       Reagan’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, saved his 1988 presidential campaign with the infamous Willie Horton ad that put a black face on crime. The ad didn’t use the n-word, but it wasn’t needed. His base got the message.     

Former NBA star Charles Barkley was once quoted as saying many people “don’t have enough courage to say the n-word, so they say things like ‘thug’ or ‘street cred.’” Even if Barkley is controversial as a social commentator, he’s not wrong about this.  Many people won’t say the n-word in public, but their policy preferences get the message across.

We’d prefer a world in which people didn’t use the n-word. What we really prefer is a world in which

people  didn’t think the thoughts that lead to the n-word.  In advocating an end to false civility and for honesty about the n-word, we’re really suggesting that what we’d like to know is where people stand. If they won’t stand with us in opposition to racial oppression, we prefer seeing who they are and understanding how they think.  As we said before, talk like you think and act. It was clear to everyone what racists believed and meant when they used the n-word.  That had the benefit of letting the rest of us identify them.

CRUNCH TIME ON BI-PARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE: CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR JOE BIDEN

The American people need an infrastructure program because the roads and bridges they use every day are crumbling around them and

because the country needs it to remain competitive with the world’s other industrialized nations. President Biden needs an infrastructure bill that keeps his

administration’s positive momentum and shows ordinary citizens government can work for them. Congressional Democrats need infrastructure

legislation as a signature accomplishment they can run on in 2022. Moderate Republicans need infrastructure legislation so they can show their voters the virtue of being something other than the party of “no.”

So, with so many divergent groups needing something done on infrastructure, why has it become one of the heaviest legislative lifts in recent times? The answer lies in the complex web of political alliances that have put the president in a precarious position. The dilemma illustrates the difficulty America faces in getting things done in an era of extreme partisanship.

A Deal – Maybe

After weeks of talking, the president and a group of senators from both parties announced agreement on a $1 trillion infrastructure package that supposedly has the backing of 11 Republican senators (Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Rounds, Graham, Young, Tillis, and Moran) and two key Democratic moderates, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. The unspoken reality was that Democrats would still try to pass the rest of Biden’s original $2.3 trillion package through budget reconciliation, meaning no need for Republican votes in the

Senate.  Biden first said he would veto the smaller bill if he didn’t get both. The 11 Republicans who were on record as supporting the bill balked and the president walked back that statement. The dust up showed the political peril that infests the whole infrastructure issue.

                                

           

With Manchin and Sinema (and maybe some other Democratic senators) apparently caring more about the appearance of bipartisanship

than the substance of an infrastructure package,  Biden now finds himself trying to thread a needle that can sew together waring elements in his own party with Republicans who might agree to pass something.

Progressive Democrats, particularly in the House, have begun expressing exasperation

with the whole idea of a bipartisan deal. A few, like Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive  Caucus, think the whole bipartisan

effort has been “wasted.” A few in the group have hinted they won’t vote for the kind of narrow bill worked out with Senate Republicans. Given the slim Democratic majority in the House, Biden can’t lose many Democratic votes in the lower chamber, since it’s not clear any Republicans will vote “yes.”

 

Shortcomings

Make no mistake, the deal with Republicans

has major weaknesses.  First,  it’s paid for with gimmicks – smoke and mirrors ideas that placate Republican refusal to raise taxes on the  wealthy. Second,

it doesn’t address a number of real needs Biden’s original big bill took head on.

Paying for the smaller bill will come from a combination of things like unused unemployment benefits money and  increased tax collections generated by a bigger IRS

budget. We’re not keen on that idea in particular. Experience suggests the yield from such an effort often comes up short. Beyond that, the country must address income inequality and the fact the wealthy currently don’t pay their fair share in taxes.  Even without the country’s massive infrastructure need, those earning over $400,000 a year should pay more.

Most experts who’ve analyzed the infrastructure proposals think the bill Biden and the bipartisan group agreed on doesn’t really tackle climate change. With the recent heatcatastrophe in the Pacific Northwest and an already raging Atlantic hurricane season (more named storms earlier than ever), we can’t imagine anyone thinking we don’t face a real climate crisis. Other shortcomings in the bill agreed on concern not enough emphasis on high speed rail and not enough money for improving the nation’s electric grid. That’s especially needed if more electric vehicles and devices come online in transportation and other industries.

 

Who Do You Trust?

Part of the dilemma Biden now faces rests in the fact he must deal with both outright enemies in the other party and skeptics in his own. Most Republicans in both houses of Congress don’t want to do anything except

obstruct him. Some House Democrats now don’t trust him to follow through and fight for a bill based on reconciliation, so some now appear reluctant to give him the smaller bill as a start.

Biden may have to wait until after the 2022 mid-terms before he can complete this process. Democratic prospects don’t look bad now for picking up a seat or two in the Senate. For one thing Republicans must defend 20 seats, Democrats only 14. For another, Republican incumbents in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina aren’t seeking re-election, potentially giving Democrats opportunities. That might diminish the importance of problem Democrats like Manchin and Sinema and pave the way for a doable reconciliation bill with tax increases and meaningful spending on pressing needs like climate change and electric grid development. But, Democrats are in real danger of losing the House in 2022 because of redistricting, Republican voter suppression, and the historical fact a president’s party usually loses seats in the mid-term elections right after that president takes office.

One irony in all this resides in the fact Biden’s original proposal enjoys 68% support among the people. Republicans in Congress apparently listen only to the 29% opposed.

Infrastructure provides Biden with a major test and a real opportunity. If he gets his two bills, he will have done his own party and the country a major service. Maybe he simply lives to fight another day with a new Congress. In today’s political circumstances, that can rank as a major accomplishment.

MOVING BASEBALL’S ALL-STAR GAME: THE DILEMMA OVER BOYCOTTS

When Major League Baseball pulled this year’s

All-Star game from Atlanta in protest of Georgia’s restrictive new voting law and moved it to Denver, the decision provoked a debate that divides both

defenders and opponents of the law. That debate pits those who see MLB’s decision, and potential boycotts by other corporate entities in Georgia, as a powerful tool in the fight for voting rights against those who lament the loss of income by black and

brown businesses and employees from events like the All-Star game.  MLB’s summer classic annually produces $84 million in economic activity. Cobb County, Georgia had expected $100 million in tourism revenue from the game.

 

The Rationale

Certainly, some saw MLB’s decision as an easy call. Those in that camp argue boycotts bring pressure on legislators who pass laws like the one in Georgia to undo the damage by repealing or modifying the measure. They point out the goal is getting decision makers to enact policies in the best

interest of the boycotters (or, in this case, black and brown citizens potentially disenfranchised by the election law). Sometimes, boycotts mostly serve the purpose of discouraging others from the behavior being protested. MLB’s move of the game, and potential action by other corporations, could dissuade other states from going down the same road (over 40 states have similar bills pending in their legislatures).

Advocates of actions like MLB’s argue boycotts represent a form of political warfare. Wars produce

casualties. Boycotters, as other warriors, do a cost benefit analysis about the value of what they might win in the war when compared with the likely losses. As Woodson reminds us, destroying public transportation wasn’t the goal of

the 1955 Montgomery bus boycotters; they just wanted better transportation services for African Americans in that city. Labor unions that utilize boycotts of a business in their organizing activities aren’t out to destroy the business, they just want better wages and/or working conditions for their members.   

 

The Other Side

Despite the force of these arguments, this debate has two sides. In the Georgia situation, opponents of moving the All-Star game note that small businesses and employees like stadium vendors and parking lot attendants will lose financial opportunities as a result of the game leaving Atlanta. Many, no doubt, are the very people who need the Georgia voting law repealed or modified, as it will impact their communities most.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a strong advocate

of the law, pushed this argument. Kemp said black and brown vendors who lose money this summer can blame Democrats, like President Joe Biden and his likely opponent in his race for re-election next year, former state Representative

Stacy Abrams. Kemp has hardly been a friend of black voters in Georgia, so his “support” of black businesses probably requires a sizeable grain of salt.

Abrams, however, is another matter. Despite expressing her “respect” for boycotts, Newsweek reported she tried to stop MLB from pulling the All-Star game from Atlanta. The magazine said she talked with a high MLB official and urged that the game remain there. She later issued a statement that said she didn’t want to see “Georgia families hurt by lost events and jobs.” Whatever political motivation Abrams might have had for coming down on the issue as she did, her action represented the thinking of some progressives as well as of conservatives.   

Corporate Dilemmas

The pressure on corporations to take a stand on issues like the Georgia voting rights law puts them

in several binds. First, they must consider the possibility of boycotts by progressives who oppose legislation like the Georgia bill. Coca-Cola, for example, certainly wouldn’t

enjoy a boycott of its products by blacks and browns who want the law repealed or changed. On the other hand, siding with opponents of the law risks alienating conservative supporters of such measures. Already Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has worn out the airwaves complaining about “woke corporations” that express support for progressive legislative actions.  

To some extent, corporations and their supporters in legislative and judicial halls, created this dilemma. They’ve argued, as the Supreme Court in effect said in the Citizens United case, that corporations are people too. If that’s the case, they’re subject to the same pressures as every other actor on the political stage, meaning they’re accountable for the disproportionate power they have in our society due to their wealth and political influence.  Boycotts may just become part of the cost of doing business.

 

A National Solution

Congress has under consideration the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, a comprehensive bill  that

would fix many of the problems the Georgia law created and head off at the pass many measures now under consideration elsewhere.  Corporations could support a national voting rights standard, arguing that’s better for the country than the hodgepodge of laws we have now.

Abrams isn’t alone in opposing bills like the one in Georgia, while seeing the potential detriment to black and brown citizens who suffer economic harm as a result of well-meaning civic actions. The Georgia debate simply kicked off the fight over this issue. It’s thorny and implicates differing interests. It’s the kind of thing some see as easy. Others believe reasonable minds could reach different conclusions.  What’s your thought? 

                

                                                             

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2020: THE LAST HURRAH

 

At long last, it’s here. One week from the date of

this post, the nation begins counting votes in the 2020 presidential election. Before that starts, we have things to say about the last days of the campaign and what’s at stake. We’ve been writing about the 2020 election for two years. On the eve of hearing the people speak, we offer an updated perspective.

The Race

Many things could happen, though they seemingly

fall into three broad categories: (1) a decisive Joe Biden win; (2) a historic Donald Trump comeback; or (3) chaos resulting from a too-close-to-call election that encourages ballot challenges and litigation initiated by Trump. With incredibly high stakes, the country sets sail on an unpredictable journey that will likely speak volumes about America’s future.

Not much has changed going into the final week from the situation we detailed on October 20. Biden enjoys a solid lead in the national polls and a narrower, but not insubstantial, lead in the key

battle ground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Trump, however, retains a precarious path to victory. No “October Surprise” that might shift the race has occurred and, as the clock ticks, one appears less and less likely.

The Last Debate

Trump and Biden faced off October 22 in their final televised debate. Under tight control by moderator Kristen Welker of NBC, Trump interrupted Biden much

less frequently than in the first debate and, for the most part, stylistically comported himself much better than on September 29. That doesn’t mean he didn’t lie and mislead as he’s done throughout his term. Fact checkers still had a busy night.

In post-debate ads and appearances, Trump tried capitalizing on Biden’s statements about transitioning from the oil industry in fighting climate change, especially in petroleum-rich states like Texas and Pennsylvania. The right- wing media claimed that would change the race.  Most mainstream pundits, however, lauded Biden’s performance. Biden won CNN’s instant poll, 53-39, with women rating him higher by 60-35. Trump didn’t close his gender gap.

       

CNN Instant Poll conducted by SSI's

Perhaps not unexpectedly for three lawyers,   

Left to Right: Rob Wiley, Henry Jones, Woodson Walker

among us concurring and dissenting opinions emerged. Woodson, though agreeing Biden did himself little harm, contended he missed opportunities for a clearer, more forceful statement on racial justice and a more cogent, better organized explanation of his coronavirus plan. Rob disagreed and thought the former vice president performed admirably in nearly all respects. Henry noted the inherent difficulty in standing on a stage alone before millions of people while facing a hostile, mendacious, adversary and a media-savvy moderator.

Henry’s observation suggests we ought not forget the notion MSNBC host and former senate staffer Lawrence O’Donnell reminds viewers of every chance he gets. The think-on-your-feet skills

needed for presidential debating bear little relationship to the capacity for deliberation and reasoned, data-driven decision making required of a president. On this score, the three of us agree. Biden wins hands down.

After the debate, the candidates, their running mates, and surrogates (like former President Barack Obama) hit the road, barnstorming the battle ground states and blitzing the airwaves with ads wherever they had money to buy time. Biden has

more money, so more people will see his ads in more places. Trump kept holding his signature rallies, virus or no virus. Vice President Mike Pence continued holding rallies though five members of his staff tested positive for the virus. Biden and running mate Kamala Harris continued their restrained approach to campaigning in the pandemic.

The Stakes

The horse race is what it is, and we’ll know the

outcome soon enough. What this election means transcends the contest. We accept the conclusions of those like the bipartisan group of over 500 national security experts, including 22 four-star military officers, who back Biden, the Republican-inspired Lincoln Project, and the

plethora of publications like USA TODAY and the New England Journal of Medicine that don’t usually endorse candidates but have done so this time. They’ve recommended that their diverse audiences support Biden because they see another four years of Trump as an existential threat to American Democracy.

      

We need not again list the current president’s sins. We’ve cataloged them and commented on them time after time in the nearly four years he has been in office. We have pointed out the ways in which his behavior disrespects the rule of law, denigrates our most significant

and important institutions, and undermines our standing in the world. Indeed, if Biden wins, coronavirus notwithstanding, he may face his biggest challenge in restoring America’s standing among nations, particularly our traditional allies in Europe and Asia.

Should Biden capture the presidency, we will have plenty to say about what tasks he should prioritize and about how he should navigate the difficult job of

putting the country back together again. For now, it’s enough to say we think it imperative the American people give him the job.

This is crunch time. Millions have already

voted,  navigating around the voter suppression efforts of Trump and his Republican cronies. The signs have been positive and turnout may break all kinds of records. But this isn’t done yet. As we write and post this, another week of voting remains. That time is too valuable for anyone not to make use of it.

Vote! We believe our democracy hangs in

the balance.

TWO WEEKS OUT: WHERE THE 2020 BIDEN-TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL RACE STANDS

 

                                   WEEKS

Let’s start with three basic truths about the 2020 presidential election two weeks from the day the vote counting starts (millions are voting early and have been for some time):

1.                        Democratic nominee Joe Biden enjoys a solid lead in the polls;

2.                        incumbent Republican President Donald Trump could win, but his path seemingly narrows every day; and

3.                        the factors that swung the 2016 election to Trump have not surfaced so far.

This is the universe in which both nervous Democrats and hopeful Republicans live as the race comes down the home stretch.

Biden’s Lead

As of October 20, two weeks before election day:

*Biden leads in fivethirtyeight.com’s national polling average by more than ten points and just under nine in the Real Clear Politics polling average.

*In the three decisive battleground states Trump won in 2016 by a total of 77,000 votes, Biden leads by five points or more in the 538 and RCP polling averages for Pennsylvania, by six in Wisconsin, and by seven in Michigan.

*Biden holds narrower leads in other battleground states Trump won in 2016 including Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona.

*Three states – Iowa, Texas, and Ohio – are essentially tied. Trump won them all last time and he likely has no path to a second term without at least two of them.

Should Biden hold his leads in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and win the states Hillary Clinton carried four years ago, he need not win any of the toss up states (Iowa, Texas, Ohio) or other battleground states. Right now, Trump doesn’t lead in any state Clinton won four years ago.

 

Trump Could Still Win

Nate Silver’s 538 forecast, based on computer modeling  using polls, gives Trump a 12%

chance of winning. On the eve of the election in 2016, with Clinton leading in the polls, that forecast gave Trump a 35% chance of winning. Trump still enjoys a structural advantage in the electoral college because of small western and southern states he seemingly can’t lose. If he could flip a few states where Biden now leads narrowly, he possibly could pair those with states like Arkansas, Wyoming, and the Dakotas where he’s likely to win by more than 15 points and perhaps cobble together an electoral college majority.

Trump also draws encouragement from the idea of the so-called hidden Trump vote. Supposedly a sizeable number of Trump supporters don’t reveal themselves to pollsters, but will turn out on election day and put him back in the White House.

Evidence that a hidden Trump vote exists is tenuous at best and results from myths that have sprung up about the 2016 election, especially the idea that the polls got  

everything wrong. In truth, the 2016 national polls forecast the popular vote accurately. Clinton held a three-point lead going into election day and won by about 2.3 points, well within the margin of error for any poll.

As Clinton pointed out in her book What Happened, not  many polls were in the field in

the final days of the campaign in states like Wisconsin. They didn’t measure there the drop in her support, seen elsewhere and likely caused by FBI Director James Comey’s reopening of the e-mail investigation.   

Biden’s lead has remained stable. It has endured since the spring and has grown, in part, because of Trump’s abysmal handling of the pandemic. Relying on a hidden vote seems like a fantasy now, but only counting the ballots can tell us if such a thing exists.

Maybe the Calvary Isn’t Coming

Whatever Clinton’s complicity in her loss, and we’ve been unsparing in our criticism of her,

the things that did her in haven’t happened to Biden to this point. First, there’s no Comey on the horizon. Trump’s efforts at creating an “October surprise” through investigations into Biden and his son Hunter, Clinton, and former President Barack Obama have, so far, fallen flat.

More important, demographic factors increasingly work against Trump. Take senior

voters. Trump won them, 52-45 in 2016, but some recent polling shows Biden leading among that group. Trump’s gender gap has only gotten bigger. He lost women, 54-41 2016, and is losing them now, 55-39. He’s not winning men by as much as he did last time. In 2016, Trump carried the male vote, 52-41, but right now leads only 49-45.

Turnout among people of color could decide the election. A decrease in black turnout for Democrats, when compared to 2008 and 2012, hurt Clinton in those critical upper mid-western states. She won almost 90% of the African American vote, 66% of Hispanics, and 65% of the Asian-American vote. Biden seems headed in the same direction, but turnout remains the issue. Early indications suggest a bigger turnout among people of color, though only the counting will tell us for sure.

Long line of African American voters during days of early voting Oct2020

All of this occurs with Republican voter suppression efforts as a backdrop. Trump’s railings about non-existent fraud with mail-in voting also complicate the picture. The country may have to work through all that after election day.

 We should keep in mind the admonition of the great American philosopher Yogi Berra that the game “ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” Fair enough, but Trump has only a few outs left, the game isn’t tied, and he doesn’t have runners on base.