Political Truce

Like all of our recent Presidents, President Obama has certainly become a lighting rod for the political divide in the United States. But what he did in the lame duck session is quite interesting and insightful. It reminds us that long-term cooperation often is much wiser than short-term gains from demonizing one's opponent.
President Obama signed off on an extension of the tax break for the wealthy after he made these tax breaks such a big deal in his campaign. Let us be clear about this. He got rolled in negotiating with the Republicans. But doing so got the tax deal out of the way. The Republicans were threatening to stop all legislation until the tax deal was done and had the support in the senate to do it.
But once that tax deal was done, the Democrats were able to get medical support for the 9/11 workers, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the START treaty. Yes he did not get the Dream Act but he got a lot more than you would expect in such a short session. And he got it because he negotiated with the Republicans rather than just insult them.
This is not even about the merits of this legislation. There is enough that happened in this session to encourage and discourage people from all political persuasions. This is about working with the other side. I tire of the endless mud slinging that come from both sides of the political spectrum. I liked seeing what happened because people worked together than against each other.
Can this be the start of a new trend of cooperation and bipartisanship? Sadly probably not. This is a unique situation where Democrats had incentives to work with Republicans and get stuff done before the Republicans take power next month and Republicans had incentive to work with Democrats to make sure the tax cuts were extended. I fear that come January the normal course of events will take place and people will go back to their full-time job of blaming the other side. No the realist in me knows that this is a circumstance that is not likely to be replicated soon. But a self-proclaim moderate can dream, can't he?

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Class over, time for vacation?

Yep. I finished my grading yesterday. So it is that time of the year when I have time off. Contrary to popular opinion, professors do not take off during the Christmas break. For many of us it is an excellent time to do research and prepare for the coming semester. (Summers often work the same way).
But truth to be told I am going to see my family for a few days during the break. It is a "family" vacation. Family vacations are when one goes to be with family members. It is not the getting away from it all that the idea of vacation tends to denote. Do not get me wrong. I love my family. But if I was to go somewhere just to relax, Arizona is not where I would be going this winter (although that is better than the snow-bound northern states).
Then again I do get the opportunity to do a lot of travel with my job. I have been in most states in this country and generally it is because of business travel. On the one hand, it does afford me the opportunity to see things that I would not normally have seen, like Niagara Falls when I was in Buffalo on business. However, I am not there to truly relax. So that is not really a vacation either.
Makes me think about what is a vacation. Is a vacation something where we just get away and do whatever we want to do? When I do that I find myself thinking a lot about the work I left behind. Consequently it is hard for me to take a vacation for a long period of time where I do not bring work.
I guess it gets back to what is the purpose of a vacation. If it is to get away from work then it is hard for some of us to actually do that. We can leave work behind but it is still in our minds. If it is to see family and friends then family vacations work out well. If it is to build relationships then going with someone else is necessary for it to have meaning.
I have no strong pronouncements on vacations. I admit that this is an evolving concept in my mind. But being a sociologist I constantly have to use my sociological imagination to consider what we often take for granted. Yes being a sociologist is a blessing and a curse. Well anyway, have a good Christmas vacation everybody!!!

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Merry Christmas

I was passing out my tests today. I wanted to greet the students with a "Merry Christmas" to alleviate some of the tension in the room. But I didn't. Why? I figure someone would get offended and who needs that hassle.
Now I first blame myself. I feel a bit like a coward for not mentioning an innocent greeting. So the first culprit has to be myself.
But we are in an atmosphere where even pleasant greeting have become the terrain of the culture war. It seems that we go out of our way to become offended. That is not the way it should be. Even if we disagree with each other can we not accept each others greetings. If someone says "Happy Hanukkah" to me then I can just take it in stride even though I am not Jewish.
So on this holiday season I do wish everyone a Merry Christmas. If that offends you then bah and humbug to you as well. I do have a final on Friday. So I get another chance to greet my class with a hearty Merry Christmas.

Search Logic

Okay. I am not eager to undergo the new enhanced searches anymore than the next person. I do not like the idea that a screener can see the naked image of my body through the machine. Opting out for a search that makes me wonder why I did not also get dinner and a movie is not my idea of fun either. So mark me down as one of those who laments the next procedures we have to undergo to protect ourselves.
But is all the hulabalo about this really necessary? We have to do things we do not like for security purposes. It is not fun holding up my pants because my belt is going through x-ray. Or having to walk in without my shoes. Finding liquids to put in the clear bag is a pain as well. But doing these things allows the powers that be do a better job of keeping me safe. As much as I do not like these things and the new search technology, I like them a whole lot better than getting blown to bits at 20,000 feet in the air. Call me crazy.
But what really gets me is the hypocrisy. The main opponents of these new techniques are on the right. You know. The law and order security hawks. If it was the ACLU doing the complaining then it would be just another "dog bites man" story. They always tend to go overboard on such issues. But the conservatives have been tell us that we have to be aggressive in ferreting out terrorists. Well this is an aggressive apporach and in keeping with that they have said in the past.
We all know that the second a terrorist succeeds in bringing down another plane that the same conservative pundits complaining right now will immediately blame President Obama. They will want to blame him for not protecting the country even as they try to deprive him of the tools to do so. Like I said, it is the hypocrisy of this that gets me.
So I have a deal for the conservatives. If they agree take the blame for any airline attack then we can get rid of the new search technology. No takers huh? I did not think so. You do not want to give up your "blame Obama" approach to life. But if you continue to complain about the new search technology then in my book it will be you, and not Obama, who should get the blame if the terrorist are successful in another attack.
Let's stop hating the TSA agents, the president and homeland security. They do not deserve our hate and hypocrisy. You know who does? The terrorist!!!

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Can't we all just get along: Part 7 - Let's have everybody win.

We need win-win situations as it concern racial issues. We have got to stop thinking about one racial group getting over on other groups. We have to change our mindset. Any solution that does not take into account the interests of everyone has to be rejected. This does not mean everybody will get everything they want. That would be nice but we know it is not realistic. But we can find solutions where all parties gets something. If all parties do not get something out of what we work out then we will not have a stable solution as those who feel ripped off will continue to work against our stated solution.
I wish I could clearly enunciate what the ultimate solutions are. But in fact we all must work together to find those solutions. One person is not going to be able to figure it all out. What I can offer is some suggestions about the sort of atmosphere we have to create if we are going to find those solutions.
First, we have to think about what brings us together. What are our core values that we can all agree on. We all have different ideas about what it means to be a member of our society, but are there not certain values that unite us? Some of my research suggests that notions of freedom may be a unifying value that people have across racial groups. We need to think about that and about other values we have in common. Doing so can help create unity between those of different races so that we begin to care about those who are not in our own racial group. Furthermore, once we have those core values then we can hold people of all races accountable to those values and create a type of equality among us.
Second, we have to be accepting of differences outside of our commonly accepted core values. Our core values will not be so encompassing that we can not differentiate from each other. Appreciating differences that do not violate commonly accepted core values will allow us to express ourselves no matter what group we come from. This will help us have a solidarity that can help us to deal with the tough issues.
Thinking about those tough issues brings up to the third suggestion. We need to develop attitudes where we think about the needs of those of other groups. It is tempting to only focus on solutions that help our group. This is a mistake. We invite our fellow citizens in other racial groups to fight against us. Instead of bringing us together thinking only about what we can get for ourselves will pull us apart. But if we can have a solidarity with those in other racial groups, if we can acknowledge the cultural core we have in common, if we can respect our differences, then we can be in a position to care about working towards solutions where we can all win. Ultimately those are the solutions that are stable and can lead to lasting racial peace.
Of course this is just a summary of some of my ideas. Space does not allow me to fully elaborate on them. However, I am the co-author of a book that just came out entitled "Transcending Racial Barriers." In it we go into more depth about implementing these ideas. So my shameless plug is that if you are interested in pursuing these ideas further then by all means check out that book. Happy Thanksgiving!!!!



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

Can't we all just get along?: Part 6 - Working Together

Over the past few weeks I have looked at a variety of different attempts to deal with our racialized society. I contend that all of them have fallen short of what we need. Now I like to think about why they have fallen short and try to think about possible solutions.
I think all of the previous solutions indicate an attempt to meet the needs of certain racial groups at the expense of other racial groups. Colorblindness and Anglo-Conformity address the concerns of people of color. Blaming whites and multiculturalism tend to the needs of people of color. But none of these solutions deal with the issues of both whites and people of color. That is why I think they fail.
Solutions that deal with only the concerns of some of the racial actors will not be supported by the ones who are ignored. Thus attempts to foster a mentality of colorblindness will be resisted by people of color who realize how such a mentality limits their ability to deal with racism. However, efforts to engage in blaming of whites will not go far since whites will fight against this blame. Likewise solutions of Anglo-Conformity and multiculturalism fail to gain widespread acceptance across the racial spectrum. A lasting solution has to be one that can be widely supported by people of all different racial groups.
We need to change our mindset as it concerns racial issues. We need to stop thinking of only solutions that help our group. We have to try to think about the other players in this game as well. Thinking about how to create "win-win" situations is the only way we will find a solution that people from all the different races will buy into. And it is only when a solution has the support of both whites and nonwhites can we hope that people will work together to finally solve this racial thing that has troubled us.
We have to create an atmosphere where we can have solutions that people of all races can buy into. Creating that atmosphere is the goal that we have to strive for. For me it is the key to address the racial disharmony I have been studying for close to two decades now. In my next and final post of this series I will discuss that sort of steps we have to take to create the sort of atmosphere we need to find racial solutions that can be supported by people across the racial spectrum.



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

Can't we all just get along?: Part 5 - Just accept all the different cutlures

Now we come to the solution most accepted by educated progressives. That is the solution of multiculturalism, which is the idea that we must learn to accept the different cultures of various racial and ethnic groups. Therefore, we do not judge people of color on the basis of European-American culture. Instead we learn to accept people of color for their own values and cultures. Multiculturalism challenges us to respect people who have traditionally been disrespected by the larger society because they are not acting "white" enough.
Multiculturalism is based upon the well-established fact that we have historically paid homage to European-Americans and European-American culture. Doing so indicates that we value whites more than people of other races. When we practice multiculturalism we are doing more than accepting the cultures of non-whites. We are learning to accept non-whites on their own terms and not on the terms of whites.
In essence, multiculturalism is about learning to accept people different than us. We talk about accepting different cultures, but really it is about accepting different racial/ethnic groups. This is obviously a powerful message and an important one if we are going to deal with our racialized society.
But how far does cultural acceptance go? If a culture normalizes female genital mutilation do I have to accept that as well. What about infanticide, polygamy, euthanasia, or just plain mean behavior? Do I have to accept anything in the name of multiculturalism.
Here is where we begin to run into problems with multiculturalism. The honest truth is that some cultures do have better values than others. We may disagree on which values are better than others, but it is clearly the case that some are better than others. Is the culture of Nazi Germany as good as societies based upon egalitarianism. At the very least am I not allowed to say that the racism and oppression in that culture is bad? What about cultures that creates terrorists or those that motivate street gangs. Multiculturalism encourages us not to judge these cultures but it is so clear that there are better cultures than these ones, that we are foolish not to judge. And once I acknowledge that some cultures are better than others, then I can not completely accept the tolerance preached by multiculturalist. Eventually I have to make value judgements about which cultures are better than others and by their very nature such judgements are subjective.
Even multiculturalists wind up making judgements. The academic movement of "Black Athena" is roughly based on multiculturalism with its arguments that the accomplishments of the Greeks were really the achievements of the Europeans. In that way European based cultures are denigrated all in the name of multicultural "tolerance." And many contemporary multiculturalists can be caught putting down uneducated whites, or people of faith. People who are seen as religious conservatives have been described by Micheal Weisskopf as "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command." Trouble-Maker bets that Weisskopf probably extols the virtues of multiculturalism. But if you are really going to be multiculturalist then you can not just support the cultures you like. You have to accept the cultures you disagree with as well. Trouble-Maker is not convinced that those who claim the label of being multiculturalist really live up to that expectation.
Ironically, multiculturalism can become a tool that allows certain people to elevate their own culture, and like-minded cultures, while they denigrate the cultures of those they do not like. Multiculturalists can look down upon cultures that are not seen as sufficiently "tolerant" and judge them for being judgemental. For this reason multicutluralism is good in theory, but it can not be fully implemented. We must have more than multiculturalism if we are going to have racial peace in our society.
The last few posts have been downers. Like any good social scientist, I have been critical of the current ideas enunciated about racial issues. That is the easy part. The hard part is coming up with solutions myself. It would be great to do just the easy part but it is in proposing solid solutions that there is a chance to make a real difference in society. So in my last couple of posts in this series I will talk about solutions. That way some other good social scientists can come along and poke holes in my solutions as well.



Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker