The Rutherford Lawson Blog

I’ve said from the start that Barack Obama’s candidacy is good for America if for no other reason than that it gives us a good excuse to have some frank conversations about race in this country. The recent “hot mike” remarks made by Jesse Jackson highlight at least two interesting topics regarding how blacks should conduct themselves in this society.

The first issue is whether or not blacks should castigate other blacks in front of whites. When I watched excerpts of Barack Obama’s “Father’s Day” speech, I must confess to some discomfort. While I fully agreed with Obama’s call for responsibility among black men, I wondered to myself when have we ever seen a white politician telling deadbeat white dads to get their act together on national television? All I could do was picture a bunch of good ‘ole boys watching his speech and saying “yep, even the colored guy knows how lazy and shiftless his colored brothers are. Heck, if he’s saying it, it must be true.” I have struggled with my feelings about this. It smacks of airing dirty laundry outside the “family”. On the other hand, how do we fix problems in any community if we don’t discuss them? When Bill Cosby gave the same message not long ago, I didn’t think twice about it. Perhaps it was because he is an entertainer. Obama is auditioning for leader of the free world, and President of ALL Americans so perhaps I’m upset to see him singling out one group for admonishment? In any case, Jesse’s comments resonated with me on a certain level. Yet I’m not comfortable about it.

The second issue involved Jesse’s use of the “N” word during his whispered comments about Obama’s social perspective. This prompted a heated debate on “The View”, a show that I don’t typically  look to for intellectual stimulation. However the following dialog is worth discussing. (The video is a bit long but ultimately worth it.)

Who should use the “N” word? Absolutely no one! In this face off on The View I was astounded to find myself at first on the same side as the too-young-to-know-better conservative Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Sheree Shepherd and Whoopi Goldberg’s old argument about how “owning” the word somehow disinfects it is just so much horse manure. The word is hateful and has no place in public or private discourse. But the argument does take an interesting turn when Hasselbeck suggests that “we all live in the same world.” To this, Whoopi angrily pointed out that life for blacks and whites in this country is not the same. Hasselbeck, who more often than not comes off like a spoiled brat who lucked into a reality show and a football player husband, was dumbfounded (and outright hurt) by Whoopi’s reaction. Sadly, Hasselbeck naively believes that her Utopian view of the world is reality. For this she badly needed a wake up call from Goldberg. Whoopi’s only mistake is in thinking that the way we deal with our lot in this country is to “take ownership” of words that demean us.

As I expected, Obama’s candidacy is sparking debate among blacks and whites about racial politics in America. More interestingly, a road map is being drawn for how to conduct oneself as a black in 21st century society. Are we truly in a post-racial period? If so, then blacks criticizing blacks in a public forum might be completely appropriate and part of that criticism ought to be the complete and utter rejection of the “N” word.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The folks at JibJab have done it again. What I love is that they are equal opportunity offenders. This clip hits everyone from Bush to Cheney to both Clintons, McCain and Obama.

Enjoy!

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the death penalty cannot be applied to cases of the rape of a child. This has produced an outcry of opposition from among others, Barack Obama. I think Obama has missed the mark on this one. You see, there is that pesky LINE as in where do we draw the LINE?

Admittedly, I oppose the death penalty altogether. Its deterrent value is questionable and it licenses the state to commit the very act that it is punishing. Of course, that is the death penalty as it applies to murder convictions. While I disagree with it, at least in the application of punishing the crime of deliberate premeditated murder, we have some objective yardstick. In the case of child rape, I see an incredibly slippery slope.

If we apply the death penalty to child rape, what do we tell:
The man whose 80 year old grandmother has been raped?
The engaged woman who was saving her virginity (yes, old fashioned but it still happens) for her future husband and has been raped?
The young woman who is now pregnant with the child of her rapist?
The man who has been raped?

Do we tell all these people that their trauma is somehow less than that of a child?  You answer, “childhood is precious and special. There must be different standards applied there.”

So do we now apply the death penalty to:
Those who physically abuse children (which would put a lot of parents on death row)?
Creators and consumers of child pornography?
Employers who violate child labor laws?

Where do we draw the line? Our national obsession with the welfare of children is somewhat hypocritical in light of our professed disdain of but secret titillation with the likes of Jamie Lynn Spears and Miley Cyrus.

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision. If we must have the death penalty, it must be reserved for the most narrowly defined set of crimes. Otherwise, in the name of so called decency, we are on the slippery slope to a terrorist state.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

There is only one thing that bothers me about the recent Obama flip flop on campaign finance. He started his statement to his supporters by saying that he would be foregoing more than $80 million in funding by opting out of public financing. Why on Earth did he say that and why did his handlers let him say that? The $80 mil he is “foregoing” is a drop in the bucket compared to what he has and what he will continue to raise. Why he felt he needed to frame this in the context of sacrifice is beyond me.

That said, the idea that this flip flop makes him a typical pol is ridiculous. A typical pol, works within the current system and plays it for all it’s worth. McCain will stick with public financing and let the 527’s do the dirty work for him in the traditional fashion. Rather than being a typical pol, Obama is going outside the established system and is really running a campaign “of the people”.  As other pundits have noted, Obama’s approach makes him beholden to no one. He has millions of small contributors, none of whom alone can unduly influence his policies. For that matter, his flip flop is not of the gargantuan proportions that McCain supporters would have you believe. Almost from the minute that Obama signed the “pledge” he started hedging, indicating that he would only accept public financing if he was assured that the playing field with McCain would be fair. He has obviously figured out that a fair fight this year means he needs all the money he can get. It’s a very sensible decision.

I guess the other thing that puzzles me is if public campaign funding is provided by tax payer dollars, why wouldn’t conservatives be overjoyed that their tax money is not going towards Obama’s campaign?

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

It seems as though in this election season we have hit the trifecta of “ism’s”. There have been accusations of racism where Obama is concerned, sexism where Clinton is concerned and most recently ageism where McCain is concerned. The mistake we make is lumping these three together. I see them as distinctly different.

In a class by itself is racism. The racist often has no acquaintances of the “opposite” race. His or her racist beliefs are grounded in stereotypes, what they’ve seen on TV or some extrapolation from the behavior of a select few to the larger group. Barack Obama’s candidacy shows how little racism relates to reality. He does not match negative stereotypes of African Americans. He is more like the so-called average white person than many of the white folks who discount him based on race. Racism, especially in the context of this presidential election comes up utterly absurd.

Sexism is a different animal entirely. This is not to say that sexism is defensible. It is not. However most males have had a woman in their lives. Men form their attitudes about women not only based on stereotype but very much based on behavior of role models. How did their mother behave towards them? How did their father treat their mother? How do they get along with their wife, daughter or sister? Mike Barnicle, columnist for the Boston Herald, has himself in hot water because he said several months ago that Hillary reminds every man of his first wife at probate court. Was this a nice thing to say? Certainly not. But it stems from Hillary’s then shrill manner reminding Barnicle of women he knows. The ways in which men and women relate cut deep into the male psyche. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an emotional trigger for many men. The women in our lives have behaved in ways that serve as context for Clinton’s behavior. This form of sexism is based on behavioral experience and cannot be accurately compared to racism based on total ignorance. (It should be added that there are other forms of sexism that do compare with racism. Assumptions about women’s mental and physical capacity, or what role they should play in life are equally offensive and irrational as racist assumptions. But much of the so called sexism suffered by Hillary related to behavior and how that behavior fit into the context of how men relate to the women in their lives.)

Now we come to ageism, a whole other bag of fish. To say, based on a number, that any random individual is incapable of being a good presidential candidate is absurd. The trick with applying the age issue to McCain is that it fits. It is not ageism, it is the accurate recognition of the role age plays in McCain’s candidacy. We can put aside the fact that he shuffles when he walks and that he doesn’t cut the most convincing presidential figure. Heck, FDR was in a wheelchair. Where McCain’s age seems to play a more relevant role is in his beliefs. The man is stuck back in the 60’s. How he can make occupation of Iraq equivalent to occupation of Japan or Germany shows that he does not understand the current situation. He is applying old models to new circumstances and he does not see the mismatch. He is rightfully “confused” between Sunni and Shia because he does not recognize that the Iraq instability is not the old Korea/Germany model of communism/socialism. It is not a social problem, it is a religious problem. McCain does not get it.

Does this mean that any candidate of McCain’s age would be similarly unable to move into the 21st century? Of course not. Being old does not mean you can’t stay current. However, in McCain’s case I think it does. For McCain, his age, where he has been and what he has seen have limited his ability to be effective.

So, while we acknowledge and examine ageism, racism and sexism in this presidential race, let us not oversimplify the matter. They are not the same phenomenon, neither in their root causes nor in their application to the various candidates.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

This, fresh off the press, Hillary made the following comment to a South Dakota newspaper today:

My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.

Surely, the Senator from New York cannot be saying what I think she is saying. It is unfathomable that she would raise the specter of assassination as a justification to stay in the race. If she means what her words cryptically imply, then she most certainly cannot seriously be considered for the Vice President position on the ticket. As Vice President, she would simply be waiting for a very different kind of 3am phone call to fulfill her political ambitions.

While I have not been a fan of Senator Clinton, this latest slip of the lip greatly disappoints and shocks me. As manipulative and cunning as I felt she was, I never believed her capable of this.

It’s time for the super delegates to bring this race to an end and for Hillary to return to the Senate and attempt to repair what little will be left of her reputation.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Back in January, I was troubled by the results of the New Hampshire primary, not because I could pinpoint racism as the cause of Obama’s loss but because our country’s cloudy record on race relations muddies the waters on such an evaluation. There is always some doubt when a black man loses a contest whether race played a role or not. Even when, as in West Virginia, some 21% of those polled said race played a role in their vote, what does this mean? Could race have played a positive role? Personally, I doubt it, but the pollster’s question allowed the answer to be ambiguous.

There is another factor which muddies the waters in West Virginia, Kentucky and other Appalachian areas. Obama did not actively campaign in either West Virgina or Kentucky. This I believe is a huge tactical error. You cannot win if you don’t play. The only way to isolate racism as Obama’s stumbling block is to remove other possible factors. “I didn’t get to know him so I didn’t vote for him.” This is a perfectly valid excuse, even if in some cases it masks a more sinister motive.

For Obama to be true to his role as a unifier, he has to reach out to all audiences including those he expects will reject him out of hand. Let’s be clear, Obama’s campaign workers have encountered blatant racism as they work the streets on his behalf. Still, this cannot deter Obama. He must go to every hamlet in this country spreading his message of One America. He needs to tell the folks in poverty stricken white enclaves that he is not so different from them. He was not born rich. He was not even born exclusively black. He has lived the “white experience” in this country as much as the so called “black experience”.

Once Obama gives his all to places like West Virginia and Kentucky, we may then re-examine to what degree racism plays a role in their political choices. Sadly, the conclusion may be the same but at least the effort to bridge the gap will have been made.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

One alarming statistic out of the West Virginia primary was that some 21% of those polled said that race played a role in their voting decision and some 85% of that group voted for Hillary Clinton. Now, the immediate response of social conservatives is to ask why I am not disturbed by the 95+% of black voters that Barack Obama typically gets. Very simply, I do believe there is a difference between a large group of people voting for someone vs a large group of people voting against someone.  Most of the blacks who vote for Obama do not do so because they don’t want a white in the White House. The historical devotion of blacks to the Democratic party, which has always offered up white candidates, supports this. With Obama, they are voting for a black, not against a white. The same cannot be said for 17 or so % of the white folks who voted against Obama.

What troubles me much more than the numbers is our inability to dig underneath them. After every primary, we are left with the cold numbers and left to draw our own conclusions but do we ever really get any closer to a productive discussion about the possible racial issues behind the numbers? One of the things we hear a lot from the pundits is that it is a generational thing. The idea being that young folks today know better than to be racist. First, I think that it is somewhat of a myth. The old song from the musical South Pacific, “You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught” still holds true today. As I look at some of the West Virginians featured on the evening news saying “I don’t want no more Husseins” or “we’ve had trouble with blacks”, I do think that perhaps they have younger relatives who are mortified to see their kin represented this way in the media. But there are lots of other young folk who know nothing better than the mental rot being fed to them by their older relatives. Their generation will carry racism into the future.

So it is not sufficient to blame our current racial divide on generational differences and implicitly suggest that we don’t need to do anything cos once all the old bigots die off, we’ll be a free nation. The current presidential race highlights how imperative it is to begin a serious national discussion on race. Some of the West Virginians quoted saying nonsense this week, are surely “God fearing” church going folks. What is their minister telling them every Sunday that leaves them so wary of blacks? What are the educational and government leaders telling them? Why are these people not being inundated with a positive message that makes their racism seem absurd to them?

What is special about this moment is that we can look at a leader who has such a complex racial background that he makes clear, by just existing, that we all have much more in common than we have apart. Barack Obama’s candidacy provides us with a ready excuse to have an open, productive and enriching conversation about our differences, and how those differences make us stronger. I suppose my great fear is that our country will pass up this opportunity. We will allow the ignorant to remain trapped in their ignorance. We will continue to make laws to change behavior but make no attempt to really change hearts and minds.

The time has come to not just stand pat on the statistical questions. After the pollster asks “Did race play a a role in your vote?”, the next question must be “why are you a racist?”

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Senator Hillary Clinton greeted a throng of enthusiastic supporters last night as she celebrated what would become a 41 point Obama whupping in West Virginia. Her speech wisely steered away from bashing her opponent, Barack Obama. She managed to strike a nice balance between spunky contender and conciliatory loser.

There was one moment however that illustrated just how desperate Clinton’s campaign has become. She is now relying on dead people and 11 year old boys to pull her through. Read below:

“…tonight I’m thinking about Florence Steen from South Dakota, eighty-eight years old and in failing health when she asked that her daughter bring an absentee ballot to her hospice bedside. Florence was born before women had the right to vote, and she was determined to exercise that right, to cast a ballot for her candidate who just happened to be a woman running for president. Florence passed on a few days ago, but I am eternally grateful to her and her family for making this such an important and incredible milestone in her life that means so much to me. I’m also thinking of Dalton Hatfield, an 11-year-old boy from Kentucky, who sold his bike and sold his video games to raise money to support my campaign.”

Let’s take on the second example first and discuss what is wrong with this picture. An 11 year old boy sells his beloved possessions to finance the campaign of a multi-millionaire. From Hillary’s incredibly self centered view of the world, this seemed wonderful. I would have been happier to hear Hillary follow up by saying “when I heard about Dalton, I immediately sent him a check for $100.00 and told him to buy back his toys and enjoy his childhood.” Then again, when your campaign is in debt up to its ears, I guess money from anyone is welcome. I’m sure in her Kentucky speech, she will brag about the prostitute who sent her a month’s worth of hooking proceeds. It’s so thrilling to see everyone involved in the race.

Then there is the case of Mrs. Steen. It is not lost on me how important it might be for an elderly woman who never dreamed of seeing a woman President to actually have the chance to vote for one. Unfortunately, Hillary let us in on a little secret that Mrs. Steen is … dead. OK, she wasn’t dead when she cast her absentee ballot and I suppose this is no different from someone getting hit by a car on their way out of the polling place … the vote still counts. Still it seemed amusing to me that Hillary is now reaching out to the extreme ends of life’s journey, an 11 year old and a near dead woman, to find support.

Then again, as my wife reminded me, Hillary is originally from Chicago where counting the votes of dead people is somewhat of a tradition.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Barack Obama has essentially sewn up the Democratic nomination and therefore, from my perspective, he can afford to be a bit daring.

The pundits and most everyone else in the mainstream media has written off Obama’s chances in West Virginia and Kentucky. They don’t fit his demographic. My advice to Barack: it’s time to get down. Actively campaign in West Virginia and Kentucky, and don’t do it on the economy; don’t do it on the war. Do it on race! Be bold and say the following to the voters of West Virginia and Kentucky:

“The media says that Hillary Clinton will win by a landslide in your state. They cite your economic situation, your education and yes, your race as the reasons you will not vote for me. Even Hillary says that I cannot win the white vote. So, I ask you, citizens of West Virginia and Kentucky, do you really want to be defined by the media? Are you content to have them paint you as hopeless bigots who are in the pocket of Hillary Clinton? I’ve been accused of being elitist. What could be more elitist than Hillary and the media taking your vote for granted? There’s no way you’ll vote for me because you are backward, cash poor, poorly educated white folks. Is that characterization alright with you? Don’t let the folks who want to pigeon hole you define you. Forget about my being “post racial” and transcendent. Show America that you are post racial and transcendent. Show the pundits that we can shake their preconceptions upside down and that we can change America.”

That’s right. I say, now that Obama truly has the momentum, let’s take the gloves off, put this racial stereotyping of voters on the table, and make it clear to West Virginia and Kentucky that they have been pegged as totally predictable. I think that is Barack’s best chance at keeping Hillary’s lead in these states to single digits.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance