Tag: bill of rights
White Men Are The Real ‘Special Snowflakes’

White Men Are The Real ‘Special Snowflakes’

The white nationalists I sometimes encounter on Twitter have an expression for militant liberals like me who care about the greater good, the suffering of the vulnerable, and the liberties guaranteed to everyone by the Bill of Rights.

It’s: “Special snowflake.”

It’s supposed to be a put-down, like I’m too delicate to handle being told “the truth” about “how things really are” by men (usually men) who “aren’t afraid to tell it like it is.” If I object to his slur-filled bile-spewing, then I’m too fragile.

Like a snowflake.

I don’t make a habit of engaging with white nationalists. It comes with being a newspaper columnist. The bigotry isn’t always obvious. After I wrote about Samuel Jared Taylor, a Yale alum who’s now among the most influential white nationalists, a concerned reader wrote to ask: “Don’t you care about your own people? What is happening to us?”

By “your people,” he meant white people.

And yes, I am.

I’m concerned that the real special snowflakes are not racial minorities, Jews, Muslims, women, or LGBTQ people. These are among the toughest people I have met, people who have endured all manner of stigma that by accident of birth I have not endured. Indeed, by the same accident, I merely have to be mediocre to be great. Meanwhile, my female and non-WASP counterparts must be great to be mediocre.

But these people are tough. It’s white men I worry about.

We are special snowflakes.

Westport is sponsoring an essay contest on the topic of white privilege. Its diversity council is encouraging schoolchildren to look inward and consider the sociopolitical advantages of being white. Westport is overwhelmingly white as well as affluent. It’s worth noting the topic was not racism.

To the surprise of organizers, white privilege turned out to be touchy-touchy. The touchiest were white men. News of the contest sparked outrage on social media. Westport resident Bari Reiner, 72, told the AP that he was “offended” by the question of white privilege. “It’s an open town,” he said. “There are no barricades here. Nobody says if you’re black or whatever, you can’t move here.”

That’s true, but why “offended”?

Asking Westport schoolchildren to consider white privilege is like asking the sons and daughters of billionaires to consider the wealth and power they were born into. Yes, white privilege is not necessarily material privilege. But socially and politically speaking, being white is a huge advantage. All white men are born on third base. But most of us think we hit a triple.

When reminded of this, however, our feelings are hurt. You have to understand: We’re sensitive. We’re special.

Like a snowflake.

Westport has not cornered the market in sensitivity. Plenty of white men, and plenty of white men who voted for President Donald Trump, exhibit similar sensitivities.

After Trump ordered a ban on immigrants from seven Muslim countries, National Public Radio went to upstate New York, where I grew up and where most of my family still lives. A reporter found a guy rejoicing over the Muslim ban. Why?

“I feel that if a Muslim woman wants to move into this country, she needs to leave her towel home,” he said, according to the NPR report.. “Because the reason this country is here and safe today is because of Jesus Christ. We were one nation under God.”

If a man claiming to be Christian was confident in his faith, and was confident in the Constitution’s protection of his free exercise, there wouldn’t be much need to worry about Muslims, no matter how many hijabs they wear.

Living in a diverse society is hard work, and reconciling differences demands courage. One way to begin is by sponsoring an essay writing contest. Topic: How to help white man understand what’s going on.

We may be like snowflakes.

But we don’t have to be.

John Stoehr is a lecturer in political science at Yale and a New Haven resident.

IMAGE: U.S. President Donald Trump is greeted by Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R) as he arrives to speak at a congressional Republican retreat in Philadelphia, U.S. January 26, 2017.  REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

The ‘Coastal Elites’ Are Reclaiming The Mantle Of God And Country

The ‘Coastal Elites’ Are Reclaiming The Mantle Of God And Country

This commentary was originally published in CT Viewpoints.

Since Election Day, a story has been told about those of us who live in Connecticut or along the coasts or who voted for the Democrat. We are told that we don’t get it. We don’t understand the working class or rural culture — the Real America.

We are “coastal elites,” we are told. Obsessed with “trigger warnings” and political correctness, we have lost touch with America’s fundamental values. I’m so done with this story.

Thank God, I’m not alone.

Democrats, liberals, and other “coastal elites” have begun taking back the mantle of God and country that has been denied them since 1980. With Ronald Reagan’s ascent, no one could be more patriotic than a Republican, according to Republicans. But with an authoritarian’s ascent, the Republicans are forfeiting, eagerly, the exclusive claim they once had to “restoring” the Constitution.

Last Friday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order closing the borders to people from seven Muslim nations. He fulfilled a campaign promise, the Muslim ban. It doesn’t beef up security. It doesn’t enhance screening. It simply excludes Muslims, and validates everything our enemies say about America. Some have tried spinning the ban into “temporary suspension,” but Trump himself called it “the ban.”

That alone would satisfy any reasonable definition of a religious test, an indefensible practice in a democracy claiming to honor and protect individual liberty. But there’s more to this. Trump made clear his preference for Christians. That’s not just a religious test. That’s the establishment of a religion — an abomination.

That’s why Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy and other Democrats said the ban is “illegal.” They plan to introduce legislation to stop it. That’s why Sally Yates, the acting attorney general, said Monday the Justice Department would not defend the ban in court. That’s why the Democratic National Committee said, after Trump fired Yates Monday, that he “cannot silence the growing voices of an American people now wide awake to his tyrannical presidency.”

Let’s say that again, with feeling.

The Democrats are accusing a Republican of tyranny.

They are right.

The first freedom enumerated in the Bill of Rights is the freedom to worship as you wish. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The founders believed an agnostic government would permit religion to flourish, and they were right. The U.S. is singular among western nations for its widespread religious practice.

How often did Republicans suggest that Barack Obama was a lawless, illegitimate president who threatened freedom? How often did they suggest Democrats, and liberalism generally, stood opposed to God and country? Republicans voted over 60 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They suggested repeatedly and shamelessly that “Obamacare” was another name for tyranny.

Obamacare was not tyranny. It was a blessing. But when actual tyranny occurred this weekend — when the president prioritized Christianity; when his administration implemented a religious test for entry; when border authorities duped legal residents into surrendering their green cards; when presidential power beggared due process, and separated children from mothers — these “constitutional conservatives” were deafening in their silence.

If Trump’s executive order raised questions about appropriate levels of vetting, there would be two sides to this story. There would be two views, arguing over the same facts, both legitimate, both representing constituencies. But this is not one of those issues.

The only way a religious test could have two sides is if one side stood for democracy and the other stood for something that is not democracy, something that does not value religious liberty. In other words, we have arrived at moment in which Republicans will defend the indefensible, and in doing so, they betray not only conservative principles but the Constitution they say they love.

Meanwhile, we the “coastal elites” are actually defending the God-given right to worship as you wish, actually fighting against the religious test of immigrants fleeing God-forsaken lands, actually protesting Trump’s unthinkable establishment of a religion.

We haven’t lost touch with fundamental American values.

Trump and the Republicans have.

John Stoehr is a lecturer in political science at Yale and a New Haven resident. 

IMAGE: U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer talks to journalists after attending the Senate Democrat party leadership elections at the U.S. Capitol, November 16.

Obama Should Look To Roosevelt In Fight Against Inequality, Right Wing

Obama Should Look To Roosevelt In Fight Against Inequality, Right Wing

Seventy years ago, on January 11, 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt delivered his 11th Annual Message on the State of the Union. The United States was at war.  But the president spoke not only of the struggle and of what Americans had to do to hasten victory over the Axis Powers. He also spoke of what Americans needed to do to win the peace to come. Reaffirming his administration’s commitment to the vision he had articulated in his 1941 Annual Message – the vision of the Four Freedoms:  Freedom of speech, Freedom of worship, Freedom from want, Freedom from fear – Roosevelt now called for an Economic Bill of Rights for all Americans.

As President Obama prepares his 2014 State of the Union address for delivery on January 28, with the question of his second-term legacy no doubt in mind and midterm elections on the near horizon, he would do well to attend to FDR’s 1944 Message. Our own challenges are not those of 1944.  But in the wake of the tragedies, crises, painful obstructions, and compromises of the past 15 years, and in the face of continuing right-wing and corporate class war against working people, they are no less daunting – and we are no less eager to start addressing them.

By January 1944, the United States and its allies had turned the tide of war. The Normandy invasion was still months away, but Allied forces were clearly advancing both east and west. And yet Americans were anxious – anxious not only about the lives of their loved ones in uniform and how long it might take to defeat Germany and Japan, but also about what might actually follow the victory. Many worried that the end of the war effort would see the return of severe economic difficulties and high unemployment, if not a new depression.

Roosevelt was well aware of those anxieties. But he knew what Americans could accomplish and he intended to speak to them as he had in 1933 — when he invited them to beat the Great Depression taking up the labors and struggles of recovery, reconstruction, and reform known as the New Deal — and again in 1941, when he mobilized them to go “All Out!” against fascism and imperialism in the name of the Four Freedoms. Now as before he would not ask them to lay aside or suspend their democratic ideals and hard-won achievements for the duration, but urge them to rescue the nation from destruction and tyranny by not only fighting and defeating their enemies, but also making America freer, more equal, and more democratic in the very process of doing so.

Roosevelt also knew full well that Congress would never endorse an economic bill of rights.  Dominated since 1938 by a conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats, Congress had been doing everything it could to terminate the New Deal, limit the rights of workers and minorities, and block new liberal initiatives.  And yet he had good reason to believe that most of his fellow citizens would embrace the idea. Polls showed that the vast majority of Americans saw the war in terms of the Four Freedoms, and understood the battles of not just the past three years, but the past 12 years, in terms of enhancing American democratic life. In fact, 94 percent of them endorsed old-age pensions; 84 percent, job insurance; 83 percent, national health insurance; 79 percent, aid for students; and 73 percent, work relief. Pollster Jerome Bruner would observe: “If a ‘plebiscite’ on Social Security were to be conducted tomorrow, America would make the plans of our Social Security prophets look niggardly. We want the whole works.”

After outlining a set of policies to speed up the war effort, the president looked ahead: “It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known.” And in favor of that he proposed the adoption of a Second Bill of Rights.

“This Republic,” he said, “had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights… They were our rights to life and liberty. As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however – as our industrial economy expanded – these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” But, he continued: “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.  ‘Necessitous men are not free men.’” And evoking Jefferson, the Founders, and Lincoln, he contended that “In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident,” and “We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.” This Second Bill of Rights included:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

In sum, he stated: “All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.”

Roosevelt did not leave it there, however. Distinguishing “clear-thinking businessmen” from the rest, he alerted his fellow citizens to “the grave dangers of rightist reaction.” And he then put Congress itself on the spot: “I ask Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights – for it is definitely the responsibility of Congress to do so.” Finally, linking the question of addressing the needs of the war veterans to that of enacting the new bill of rights in a universal program of economic and social security, he declared: “Our fighting men abroad – and their families at home – expect such a program and have the right to insist upon it.”

The labor movement quickly mobilized around the president’s proposal. Liberal politicians, editors, academics, and theologians enthusiastically joined in a newly created National Citizens Political Action Committee to bolster labor’s efforts. Civil rights organizations firmly embraced the promise they heard in FDR’s words. And Americans energetically rallied as workers, consumers, and citizens.

Roosevelt himself did not retreat in the autumn presidential campaign. He not only reiterated his call for a new bill of rights. He also insisted that the “right to vote must be open to our citizens irrespective of race, color or creed – without tax or artificial restriction of any kind.” And that November, he won re-election to a fourth term with 53.5 percent of the vote, and the Democratic Party, though it lost a seat in the Senate, gained 20 in the House.

Tragically, FDR was right about the dangers of rightist reaction. Americans’ hopes and aspirations were stymied by aggressive and well-funded conservative and corporate campaigns. Still, compelled by popular pressure, Congress did enact a “GI Bill of Rights,” an historic initiative that enabled 12,000,000 veterans ­– nearly 1 in 10 Americans – to radically transform themselves and their country for the better. And in years to come their generation would not only make America richer and stronger, but would act anew to progressively realize the vision that Roosevelt had projected.

We need to redeem that vision. President Obama has rightly warned that inequality seriously threatens America’s promise. He may not be able to enact any new grand initiatives before he leaves office. But remembering Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 Message, and speaking with confidence in and to his fellow citizens, he may not only get Americans to vote Democratic in November and set the agenda for 2016. He may also encourage us to go “All Out!” in the fight to renew America’s grand experiment in democracy. That would be a great second-term legacy.

Harvey J. Kaye is Professor of Democracy and Justice Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and the author of the forthcoming book The Fight for the Four Freedoms: What Made FDR and the Greatest Generation Truly Great (Simon & Schuster). Follow him on Twitter @harveyjkaye

Photo via Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library & Museum