Spoiler alert: I will be mentioning plot lines that occur in the last season of The Wire. So if you haven’t seen the last season, you might not want to read this.
In the final episode of the Wire, Bubbles quotes Kafka:
“You can hold back from the suffering of the world, you have free permission to do so, and it is in accordance with your nature. But perhaps the holding back is the one suffering you could have avoided.”
I was so enthralled with this quote that I decided to do some research on Kafka. My research led me to an essay written by Milan Kundera about Kafka. Although this essay was written about Kafka, it could have easily been about the wire. Whereas many fans have likened the wire to Dickens and Dostoyevski, I think the most apropos analogy is Kafka. In order to do this, I am going to expound on Kundera’s comments on Kafka and relate it to the wire.
Kundera: “[Kafka] has transformed the profoundly antipoetic material of a highly bureaucratized society into the great poetry of the novel; he transformed a very ordinary story of a man who cannot obtain a promised job (which is actually the store of The Castle) into myth, into epic, into a kind of beauty never before seen.”
Sh-eee-it, if that doesn’t encapsulate much of the allure of the wire, I don’t know what does. What makes the wire so amazing is that it makes the complexity of American bureaucracies so intriguing and entertaining. It doesn’t fall prey to sterile Hollywood clichés such as over-the-top car chases and/or unrealistic superheroes who swoop in to save the day. They weave this web of all this interconnecting elements but instead of connecting them through typical plot devices like a handsome lead actor or the closure of killing the bad guy, they connect it through the city. Kundera points to this: “Novelists before Kafka often exposed institutions as arenas where conflicts between different personal and public interests were played out. In Kafka the institution is a mechanism that obeys its own laws; no one knows now who programmed those laws or when; they have nothing to do with human concerns and are thus unintelligible.” Instead of putting the bureaucracy in the background, the wire places bureaucracy iin the foreground, constantly dictating the plot’s progressions, digressions, and regressions. And it is in the constant frustrations with bureaucracy, the creative ways around bureaucracy, and the inevitable reconciliations with bureaucracy that makes the show so amazing. Even though I might use the word ‘bureaucracy’ and ‘city’, the show itself is able to point to the nameless without ever giving it a name. It visualizes the claustrophobic nature that societal/institutional logic has wrought upon us without ever being explicit. It is as if the bureaucracy is the steady back beat of the base drum, acting as metronome to the city. That even though each part of the city might be dancing to its own tune, if you can capture the light just right, you can see that everybody is dancing to the same beat. The Wire attunes itself to the city of Baltimore and arranges the bureaucratic complexities, the different constituencies, and contradictory impulses into a minuet to be danced.
Kundera: “There are tendencies in modern history that produce the Kafkan in the broad social dimension: the progressive concentration of power, tending to deify itself; the bureaucratization of social activity that turns all institutions into boundless labyrinths; and the resulting depersonalization of the individual.”
The Wire captures the Kafka-esque qualities that Baltimore has come to take on. In the case of the public officials, it is the deification of the election cycle. For the public officials, everything comes down to the need to get elected. It is the need to get elected that transforms an idealist into an instrumentalist (Carcetti); forces a reformist to become a defeatist (Daniels); turns a good cop into a corrupt cop (McNulty). For the people on the street, it is the deification of the drug game. It is what motivated Cheese to kill Prop. Joe; it is what brings Marlo back onto the corners; it is what makes Snoop Snoop. This gravitational pull of this power is captured yet again by Kundera: “wherever power deifies itself, it automatically produces its own theology; wherever it behaves like God, it awakens religious feelings toward itself; such a world can be described in theological terms.” This is what brings Marlo back; it is what brings Omar back; it is why people can never leave Baltimore.
Kundera: “In the world of the Kafkan, the comic is not a counterpoint to the tragic (the tragic-comic) as in Shakespeare; it’s not there to make the tragic more bearable by lightening the tone; it doesn’t accompany the tragic, not at all, it destroys it in the egg and thus deprives the victims of the only consolation they could for…Indeed, a joke is a joke only if you’re outside the bowl; by contrast, the Kafkan takes us inside, into the guts of a joke, into the horror of the comic.”
McNulty’s alcoholism and adultery is meant to be comical, along with Bubbles’ drug addiction and Senator Davis’ corrupt dealings. And within the very core of this comicality lies the horror; the horror that any and every good cop is bound to be licentious; the horror that drugs are so inevitably engrained within the fabric of this society; the horror that political corruption is so normalized and accepted. Every laugh is subsequently followed by a cringe, if only because it takes me a second to unpack what exactly is it that is so comical. The more the depravity, the bigger the laugh.
Kundera: “In the Kafkan world, man’s physical existence is only a shadow cast on the screen of illusion…shadows without even the right to exist as shadows.”
This seems spot on to describe how the Wire is trying to describe the plight of young black men growing up in Baltimore. What perhaps best personifies this is what happens to Omar at the end. Not even the Robin Hood of Baltimore can get a byline in the paper, let alone the correct name on his body bag. Also, when Dukie is reminiscing with Michael and Michael won’t even allow himself to remember, that just says it all. Not even allowed to be remembered; not even allowed to have memories. It is perhaps best summed up by Marlo when he found out Omar was after him: “my name is my name.” I take that to mean that his name is all he got. Without that he is nothing. This is somewhat ironic since being the drug kingpin, publicity is the last thing you’d think he want. And yet, even that was taken away from him. The one thing that made him a shadow was taken from him from his most loyal subordinates. Sh-eee-it.
Thus, to call the wire Dickensian or even Dostoyevskian is to do an injustice to the primacy institutions and social structures play and the subsequent comedic depravity and the concomitant depersonalization of a whole race of people that that comes with. The Wire captures the beauty of America’s depravity in much the same way a eulogy can capture a loved one’s life. It is an artistry steeped in bitterness and sorrow that can be too personal for some and too distant for others. But for the rare few that it does strike a chord with, it resonates long after the final credits roll.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The audacity of progress without struggle: analyzing the speech we've all been waiting Obama to make
In light of the ‘incendiary’ remarks by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama seemed to have no other choice but to finally come out with his ‘race’ speech. After the speech, commentators seemed to all share a similar prognosis/analysis: This is way too hot for me to handle, let’s see how it plays out electorally with white Americans. The sound bites taken from his 35 minute speech is not doing justice at all to his speech and I think in the end, it is going to be the sound bites that do him in. Before I get into my analysis of his speech, I do have give him props for putting it out there the way he did. He could have easily pulled a Romney. (i.e. When Romney gave his speech about being Mormon, he averted the controversy and basically just equated Mormonism with the rest of Christianity) But Obama didn’t. He took this opportunity to integrate his analysis of race/racism into his broader project of unity and what I have termed the politics of transcendence. Also, I need to commend how his comments about transcending the politics of fear that has pervaded the current state of politics as well as resituating the zero-sum game that has been a incessant feature of working-class politics and put it back on the corporations. Kudos. But even with these glimmers of inspiration, I am nevertheless left with wide swaths of unsatisfaction and a bunch of questions.
After reading and listening to his speech twice, I am reminded of something Frederick Douglass once said:
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.”
I am hesitant to label him as the 21st century Booker T. Washington, because this lends itself to a crude caricature that doesn’t do justice to the complexity and contextuality of both Washington and Obama, but it is a concern that runs throughout my analysis.
Let me take a step back though and get into what he actually said.
So he starts off by talking about slavery. For a presidential candidate to talk about slavery, that was shocking. He didn’t mince words, he didn’t beat around the bush; he went straight to the heart of the matter. I give him much kudos for that.
Slavery represents one of the bleakest chapters of American history. And it is also one of the most divisive chapters of American history. White people acknowledge the evil of slavery, but many are tired of hearing about it, particularly as it relates, if at all, to the present. Blacks acknowledge the evil of slavery and many are all too ready and willing to bring it up and tired of other people being tired of it. For many white Americans, their relation to American history is akin to Forrest Gump. They regard the evils of slavery as belonging to a distant past that has no substantive connection to the present. There is a degree of cognitive dissonance between their love/patriotism for this country and their engagement with the sordid details that make up much of American history. And this is all to say that Obama has set the stakes high. His introductory remarks about slavery make it clear that this speech will make or break his campaign.
His account of slavery is pretty good. He ends his discussion on slavery with this: “What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part- through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk – to narrow the gap between the promise of our ieals and the reality of the future.”
What I find so puzzling about his account of slavery is his segue. After talking about slavery, he then goes to talk about his run for the presidency and how “we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together” and “how we hold common hopes.” What???? How exactly does that connect with slavery? Didn’t you just mention the fact that this country went to war to get rid of slavery? Isn’t the fact that a war had to be waged proof that we don’t have common hopes and that some problems are so urgent that we can’t wait for everybody to get on board. Most white Southerners did not want to get rid of slavery. There was no common hope between white southerners and their slaves. White southerners were forced to do the right thing. So to talk about common hopes and coming together makes absolutely no sense in regards to American slavery.
It would seem to be the case that Obama wants to acknowledge the deep-seated historical basis of racism without necessarily giving proper due to how that racism was overcome. Yes, he mentions protests and struggle, but I would argue he gives it short shrift. He not only downplays the many people who had to sacrifice their lives in order for the rest of America to finally see the light, but he also denigrates the righteous indignation that many people carry knowing that great people had to become martyrs for others to see the light.
Obama depicts Rev. Wright as understandable but distorted. Obama sympathetically situates Wright’s indignation as a product of a particular generation, a generation that grew up with Jim Crow, but nonetheless regards this kind of indignation as unproductive and distracting.
If I had the opportunity to ask Obama a question, I would ask, “is what Rev. Wright said any more indignant than what William Lloyd Garrison said?” In 1845, William Lloyd Garrison said in a speech that “the American states are united by a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell.” Garrison refers to the Constitution as “an instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the criminal history of the world” and goes on to say that “to call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the understanding of mankind.” It was these indignant speeches that helped pushed the U.S. into abolishing slavery. It was these indignant words that helped expose the hypocrisy and establish freedom for millions of slaves.
If Obama’s depiction of history is correct, then we shouldn’t have needed Garrison. All we would have needed to do is come together, dismiss any sort of indignation because it necessarily leads to ‘despair or cynicism’, and find a common stake. But my understanding of history leaves me to believe that if you want to get rid of something like slavery, you can’t wait on everybody. Fact is, most didn’t want to get rid of slavery. Most either were at worse supportive of slavery, at best, indifferent to it. The elimination of slavery required indignation. It required a degree of impatience. People kept telling the abolitionists to wait. The electoral process will eventually phase slavery out. The elimination of slavery required the acknowledgement that not only are there bad people in this country but there is a lot of apathy in this country. And sometimes that apathy needs to be rocked. That to line up ideals with reality, people have to die. Martin Luther King understood this. He knowingly encouraged women and kids to march in Selma, even though he knew they would most likely get harassed, beaten, and killed. Progress comes with a price. It shouldn’t have to, but it does. And when Obama gets indignant over Wright’s indignation, then Obama can’t help but give short shrift to the struggle that progress entails. You got to rage against the machine if you want to change the machine.
It is this retelling of American history that makes me draw on the Booker T. Washington analogy. Both didn’t shy away from the dark corridors of American history, but their prescription was to nevertheless dehistoricize the present. Basic premise is this: We got this far through struggle, but what we need now is to stop struggling and start focusing on the “conservative notion of self-help.” Struggle is what got us through the past, but self-help is what will get us to the future. We need to stop being angry and start being productive. So what Obama is saying isn’t anything new. He wants us to forsake struggle, forsake indignation, forsake the politics of opposition and embrace democracy, embrace consensus decision-making, embrace our commonalities, and embrace the politics of transcendence. By doing so, we will get change.
But what he fails to mention is that democracy is what brought on slavery. Consensus decision-making is exactly the excuse the framers of the constitution gave when they made allowances for slavery. It was their embracing of the commonality that they were all white men, that encouraged a toleration for slavery. It was the politics of transcendence that overshadowed the politics of brutal dehumanization.
Now one can say, Obama is different. And of course he is. But when he vilifies the kind of righteous indignation professed by Rev.Wright, then I can’t help but see Obama as more of an apologist of how things are, as Booker T. Washington was in his day, then an agent of progress. To harken back to the words of Douglass, to want the rain without the thunder and lightning is audacity at its finest.
After reading and listening to his speech twice, I am reminded of something Frederick Douglass once said:
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.”
I am hesitant to label him as the 21st century Booker T. Washington, because this lends itself to a crude caricature that doesn’t do justice to the complexity and contextuality of both Washington and Obama, but it is a concern that runs throughout my analysis.
Let me take a step back though and get into what he actually said.
So he starts off by talking about slavery. For a presidential candidate to talk about slavery, that was shocking. He didn’t mince words, he didn’t beat around the bush; he went straight to the heart of the matter. I give him much kudos for that.
Slavery represents one of the bleakest chapters of American history. And it is also one of the most divisive chapters of American history. White people acknowledge the evil of slavery, but many are tired of hearing about it, particularly as it relates, if at all, to the present. Blacks acknowledge the evil of slavery and many are all too ready and willing to bring it up and tired of other people being tired of it. For many white Americans, their relation to American history is akin to Forrest Gump. They regard the evils of slavery as belonging to a distant past that has no substantive connection to the present. There is a degree of cognitive dissonance between their love/patriotism for this country and their engagement with the sordid details that make up much of American history. And this is all to say that Obama has set the stakes high. His introductory remarks about slavery make it clear that this speech will make or break his campaign.
His account of slavery is pretty good. He ends his discussion on slavery with this: “What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part- through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk – to narrow the gap between the promise of our ieals and the reality of the future.”
What I find so puzzling about his account of slavery is his segue. After talking about slavery, he then goes to talk about his run for the presidency and how “we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together” and “how we hold common hopes.” What???? How exactly does that connect with slavery? Didn’t you just mention the fact that this country went to war to get rid of slavery? Isn’t the fact that a war had to be waged proof that we don’t have common hopes and that some problems are so urgent that we can’t wait for everybody to get on board. Most white Southerners did not want to get rid of slavery. There was no common hope between white southerners and their slaves. White southerners were forced to do the right thing. So to talk about common hopes and coming together makes absolutely no sense in regards to American slavery.
It would seem to be the case that Obama wants to acknowledge the deep-seated historical basis of racism without necessarily giving proper due to how that racism was overcome. Yes, he mentions protests and struggle, but I would argue he gives it short shrift. He not only downplays the many people who had to sacrifice their lives in order for the rest of America to finally see the light, but he also denigrates the righteous indignation that many people carry knowing that great people had to become martyrs for others to see the light.
Obama depicts Rev. Wright as understandable but distorted. Obama sympathetically situates Wright’s indignation as a product of a particular generation, a generation that grew up with Jim Crow, but nonetheless regards this kind of indignation as unproductive and distracting.
If I had the opportunity to ask Obama a question, I would ask, “is what Rev. Wright said any more indignant than what William Lloyd Garrison said?” In 1845, William Lloyd Garrison said in a speech that “the American states are united by a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell.” Garrison refers to the Constitution as “an instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the criminal history of the world” and goes on to say that “to call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the understanding of mankind.” It was these indignant speeches that helped pushed the U.S. into abolishing slavery. It was these indignant words that helped expose the hypocrisy and establish freedom for millions of slaves.
If Obama’s depiction of history is correct, then we shouldn’t have needed Garrison. All we would have needed to do is come together, dismiss any sort of indignation because it necessarily leads to ‘despair or cynicism’, and find a common stake. But my understanding of history leaves me to believe that if you want to get rid of something like slavery, you can’t wait on everybody. Fact is, most didn’t want to get rid of slavery. Most either were at worse supportive of slavery, at best, indifferent to it. The elimination of slavery required indignation. It required a degree of impatience. People kept telling the abolitionists to wait. The electoral process will eventually phase slavery out. The elimination of slavery required the acknowledgement that not only are there bad people in this country but there is a lot of apathy in this country. And sometimes that apathy needs to be rocked. That to line up ideals with reality, people have to die. Martin Luther King understood this. He knowingly encouraged women and kids to march in Selma, even though he knew they would most likely get harassed, beaten, and killed. Progress comes with a price. It shouldn’t have to, but it does. And when Obama gets indignant over Wright’s indignation, then Obama can’t help but give short shrift to the struggle that progress entails. You got to rage against the machine if you want to change the machine.
It is this retelling of American history that makes me draw on the Booker T. Washington analogy. Both didn’t shy away from the dark corridors of American history, but their prescription was to nevertheless dehistoricize the present. Basic premise is this: We got this far through struggle, but what we need now is to stop struggling and start focusing on the “conservative notion of self-help.” Struggle is what got us through the past, but self-help is what will get us to the future. We need to stop being angry and start being productive. So what Obama is saying isn’t anything new. He wants us to forsake struggle, forsake indignation, forsake the politics of opposition and embrace democracy, embrace consensus decision-making, embrace our commonalities, and embrace the politics of transcendence. By doing so, we will get change.
But what he fails to mention is that democracy is what brought on slavery. Consensus decision-making is exactly the excuse the framers of the constitution gave when they made allowances for slavery. It was their embracing of the commonality that they were all white men, that encouraged a toleration for slavery. It was the politics of transcendence that overshadowed the politics of brutal dehumanization.
Now one can say, Obama is different. And of course he is. But when he vilifies the kind of righteous indignation professed by Rev.Wright, then I can’t help but see Obama as more of an apologist of how things are, as Booker T. Washington was in his day, then an agent of progress. To harken back to the words of Douglass, to want the rain without the thunder and lightning is audacity at its finest.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Guns: the good, the bad and the ugly
3/6/08 - University of North Carolina - Student body president is shot and killed.
3/4/08 – University of Auburn – Student shot and killed.
2/14/08 – Northern Illinois University – Student shot and killed 5 people and himself.
4/16/08 – Virginia Tech University – Student shot and killed 32 people.
4/02/07 - University of Washington – Student shot and killed one person and himself.
Let me preface this by saying that these acts are horrible, wrong and sad. Also let it be said that the news coverage on these university killings dwarfs the news coverage on killings in South Central Los Angeles, New Orleans, Detroit, and Baltimore. With that said however, it does not mean we should ignore the recent spat of killings on American campuses simply because the media bias for it. A part of me wants to explore and investigate, in hopes of figuring out why these killings are occurring. Perhaps there is no tie that binds all these incidents together. But rather than explore the possible causes of these actions, I would like to take this time to explore the reactions to these actions, if only because i have yet to hear a good analysis of the positions.
Which brings me to the state of Arizona. In light of all these campus shootings, the state legislature is currently mulling over a bill that would allow people to carry guns on campus. Arizona’s answer to increasing gun crime is to increase the number of guns. This kind of mentality is similar to the logic that there should be more nuclear bombs in the world. If everybody had a nuclear bomb, there is an increased likelihood that there would be no wars since no one would be stupid enough to initiate global Armageddon. Also, since it is impossible to eliminate nuclear bombs, we should then all get one. It’s a non-ideal solution to the free-rider problem.
What I find interesting about Arizona’s response to gun crime is how completely opposite it is from inner city’s response to gun crime. You would be hard pressed to find anybody in the ghetto pushing for increasing the number of guns in response to an increase in gun-related violence. Go to any ghetto and ask them if there are too many or too little guns out there.
I bring this up because this corresponding correlation between where one lives and where one stands on gun control reflects how certain communities are mired in a culture of fear while other communities are simply tired of living in fear. Where one sees short-term, non-ideal reactions as the only viable alternative, the other sees long-range ideals as the only viable alternative.
At a time when inner cities are trying to rid themselves of the proliferation of guns, Arizonans are trying to replenish their supply of guns. Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and New Orleans should just sell their guns on e-bay to Arizona. Better yet, I say they should just give them away. If Arizonans feel that the best way to deter gun-related violence is to increase gun-ownership, then shouldn’t they simply socialize gun-ownership? Doesn’t their logic dictate that every Arizonan own a gun? If eliminating gun-related violence is the problem, and gun ownership is the answer, then the government should intervene and ensure that everyone not only has access to a gun but everyone gets a gun. The state can offset costs in buying guns by cutting the budget for law enforcement. If everybody has a gun, then we wouldn’t need so many cops. Not only that, if everybody has a gun, cops are probably not as likely to want to get involved.
This is a classic libertarian premise with a classic socialist remedy.
The other option is not to arm more citizens, but to beef up law enforcement. This is what New York did in the 1980s and 1990s. Twenty years ago, New York was crazy. And starting with Mayor Dinkins followed up Giuliani, the city responded by substantially beefing up the numbers of police officers, dramatically increasing the police budget, and enforcing draconian laws that put thousands in prison. New York now has more cops per capita than in any other city in America. And because there was such a dramatic decline in gun-related violence, the mayor was exculpated from an increasing string of civil liberty violations, instances of police brutality and rumors of corruption/nepotism. There was a new political calculus: the more the rate of violent crime goes down, the more political capital I have accumulated, and hence the freer I can transcend the bounds of legality, democracy and moral decency. In other words, the more law there is, the more our political leaders can act lawlessly.
This is a classic welfarist position that turns dictatorial.
The other option is to get rid of guns entirely. This is what countries like Japan and England did. There, they have a significantly lower rate of violent crime than the U.S. But the problem with this approach is the free-rider problem. Even if we all agreed to get rid of guns entirely, how can we be sure that everybody would get rid of their guns? Might there be a few who would lie and hide their guns? And wouldn’t it be in their self-interest to be hypocrites and encourage everybody to turn their guns while hiding their own guns?
Yes, this is most likely going to happen. There is no way to ensure that everybody turns in their guns. At best, you can get a majority of guns, but never can you get all the guns.
In addition, there is also a racial tint to this. In the 1970s, Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, spearheaded efforts for stringent gun-control laws. Why? Because the Black Panther Party was openly flouting guns and boasting that they were going to make sure cops do their jobs to protect and serve the community. In other words, they were going to police the police. There had been a spat of police shootings of blacks under questionable circumstances.
There are thus two main issues when it comes to getting rid of guns entirely: Is it such a good idea that the state has all the guns? Also, how exactly should the process of de-gunning the population occur?
This is a classic idealist position that can incur possible racial disparities in addition to the inevitable free-rider problem.
The three options I have outlined all have costs and benefits. But I think the third option is the most viable. Here is why. The first option assumes people are always rational and I just don’t think that is the case. Also, if violence were to break out, then the floodgates open and it will just be chaos. The second option assumes power won’t corrupt and I just don’t think that is the case. The kind of political calculus the second option fosters is not worth it. The third option also entails the government getting too big for its britches but less so, because it entails de-gunning the state as well. If the people have to disarm, so should the state. Also, as much as the free-rider problem is inevitable, it can be contained via harsh penalties, huge economic incentives and efficient record-keeping. Not only that but if advocates of each option were to take their position to their extreme as I tried to do, I think the only ones who would still support their position is the ones supporting the third option. I just don’t see gun advocates turning into socialists anytime soon. I just don’t see anybody supporting dictatorships anytime soon. But I can see idealists be willing to accept some free-riders and some racial disparities. The key to these positions is to see them through to the end, evaluate the cost-benefit analyses of each, and see what you’d be willing to stomach.
3/4/08 – University of Auburn – Student shot and killed.
2/14/08 – Northern Illinois University – Student shot and killed 5 people and himself.
4/16/08 – Virginia Tech University – Student shot and killed 32 people.
4/02/07 - University of Washington – Student shot and killed one person and himself.
Let me preface this by saying that these acts are horrible, wrong and sad. Also let it be said that the news coverage on these university killings dwarfs the news coverage on killings in South Central Los Angeles, New Orleans, Detroit, and Baltimore. With that said however, it does not mean we should ignore the recent spat of killings on American campuses simply because the media bias for it. A part of me wants to explore and investigate, in hopes of figuring out why these killings are occurring. Perhaps there is no tie that binds all these incidents together. But rather than explore the possible causes of these actions, I would like to take this time to explore the reactions to these actions, if only because i have yet to hear a good analysis of the positions.
Which brings me to the state of Arizona. In light of all these campus shootings, the state legislature is currently mulling over a bill that would allow people to carry guns on campus. Arizona’s answer to increasing gun crime is to increase the number of guns. This kind of mentality is similar to the logic that there should be more nuclear bombs in the world. If everybody had a nuclear bomb, there is an increased likelihood that there would be no wars since no one would be stupid enough to initiate global Armageddon. Also, since it is impossible to eliminate nuclear bombs, we should then all get one. It’s a non-ideal solution to the free-rider problem.
What I find interesting about Arizona’s response to gun crime is how completely opposite it is from inner city’s response to gun crime. You would be hard pressed to find anybody in the ghetto pushing for increasing the number of guns in response to an increase in gun-related violence. Go to any ghetto and ask them if there are too many or too little guns out there.
I bring this up because this corresponding correlation between where one lives and where one stands on gun control reflects how certain communities are mired in a culture of fear while other communities are simply tired of living in fear. Where one sees short-term, non-ideal reactions as the only viable alternative, the other sees long-range ideals as the only viable alternative.
At a time when inner cities are trying to rid themselves of the proliferation of guns, Arizonans are trying to replenish their supply of guns. Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and New Orleans should just sell their guns on e-bay to Arizona. Better yet, I say they should just give them away. If Arizonans feel that the best way to deter gun-related violence is to increase gun-ownership, then shouldn’t they simply socialize gun-ownership? Doesn’t their logic dictate that every Arizonan own a gun? If eliminating gun-related violence is the problem, and gun ownership is the answer, then the government should intervene and ensure that everyone not only has access to a gun but everyone gets a gun. The state can offset costs in buying guns by cutting the budget for law enforcement. If everybody has a gun, then we wouldn’t need so many cops. Not only that, if everybody has a gun, cops are probably not as likely to want to get involved.
This is a classic libertarian premise with a classic socialist remedy.
The other option is not to arm more citizens, but to beef up law enforcement. This is what New York did in the 1980s and 1990s. Twenty years ago, New York was crazy. And starting with Mayor Dinkins followed up Giuliani, the city responded by substantially beefing up the numbers of police officers, dramatically increasing the police budget, and enforcing draconian laws that put thousands in prison. New York now has more cops per capita than in any other city in America. And because there was such a dramatic decline in gun-related violence, the mayor was exculpated from an increasing string of civil liberty violations, instances of police brutality and rumors of corruption/nepotism. There was a new political calculus: the more the rate of violent crime goes down, the more political capital I have accumulated, and hence the freer I can transcend the bounds of legality, democracy and moral decency. In other words, the more law there is, the more our political leaders can act lawlessly.
This is a classic welfarist position that turns dictatorial.
The other option is to get rid of guns entirely. This is what countries like Japan and England did. There, they have a significantly lower rate of violent crime than the U.S. But the problem with this approach is the free-rider problem. Even if we all agreed to get rid of guns entirely, how can we be sure that everybody would get rid of their guns? Might there be a few who would lie and hide their guns? And wouldn’t it be in their self-interest to be hypocrites and encourage everybody to turn their guns while hiding their own guns?
Yes, this is most likely going to happen. There is no way to ensure that everybody turns in their guns. At best, you can get a majority of guns, but never can you get all the guns.
In addition, there is also a racial tint to this. In the 1970s, Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, spearheaded efforts for stringent gun-control laws. Why? Because the Black Panther Party was openly flouting guns and boasting that they were going to make sure cops do their jobs to protect and serve the community. In other words, they were going to police the police. There had been a spat of police shootings of blacks under questionable circumstances.
There are thus two main issues when it comes to getting rid of guns entirely: Is it such a good idea that the state has all the guns? Also, how exactly should the process of de-gunning the population occur?
This is a classic idealist position that can incur possible racial disparities in addition to the inevitable free-rider problem.
The three options I have outlined all have costs and benefits. But I think the third option is the most viable. Here is why. The first option assumes people are always rational and I just don’t think that is the case. Also, if violence were to break out, then the floodgates open and it will just be chaos. The second option assumes power won’t corrupt and I just don’t think that is the case. The kind of political calculus the second option fosters is not worth it. The third option also entails the government getting too big for its britches but less so, because it entails de-gunning the state as well. If the people have to disarm, so should the state. Also, as much as the free-rider problem is inevitable, it can be contained via harsh penalties, huge economic incentives and efficient record-keeping. Not only that but if advocates of each option were to take their position to their extreme as I tried to do, I think the only ones who would still support their position is the ones supporting the third option. I just don’t see gun advocates turning into socialists anytime soon. I just don’t see anybody supporting dictatorships anytime soon. But I can see idealists be willing to accept some free-riders and some racial disparities. The key to these positions is to see them through to the end, evaluate the cost-benefit analyses of each, and see what you’d be willing to stomach.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Bitch might not be the new black…but it sure is grey: Why everyone seems to hate Hillary Clinton
How do I hate thee, let me count the ways:
1) Universal Health care
During Bill Clinton’s first year in the White House, Hillary spearheaded efforts to try and get universal health care. Republicans were in control of Congress back then and they went all-out against Hillary. HMOs weren’t paying these Congressmen for nothing. She was labeled a socialist, supposedly wanted to tax the hell out of Americans, and was using her status as first lady to do what should be left to elected officials. They even burned a puppet of her in effigy. This is YEAR ONE. After the Republican onslaught, her health care initiative died and she went into hiding.
2) Bill’s blowjob
Most people remember the story, but for those that don’t, here is a quick recap: Bill gets a blowjob from an intern named Monica Lewinsky. Subsequently lies about it on national TV, almost gets impeached for lying about it, and then confesses that he lied about it. Not only does this tarnish Bill’s legacy and reputation, but it also tarnishes Hillary’s as well. Everybody was wondering how Hillary is dealing with this whole event (which by the way lasted several months) and what, if anything, was she going to do once she found out that her husband cheated on her. We never heard from her and so we were left to speculate. What we do know is that she stayed married to him. So, was she simply being a careerist, thereby pissing off those who prize integrity and dignity? Was she playing the humble housewife that forgives her husband’s transgressions, thereby pissing off feminists? Is this basically comeuppance for trying to be a working woman, thereby validating social conservatives disdain for her?
3) Foreign Policy
She voted for the war in Iraq and has refused to acknowledge the mistake. She has said she is open to attacking Iran. Also, she hasn’t ruled out torture. She doesn’t want to make any firm commitments about closing Guantanamo Bay. She criticizes Barack Obama for wanting to talk to foreign leaders who we disagree with. She even says that she would make the better democratic nominee for president because she is more of a hawk than Obama and that is what is needed to beat John McCain. She is a hawk. And in foreign policy parlance, that just draws the bitter ire of any and all doves, diplomats, and deliberative democrats.
4) Presidential Campaign
Firstly, no one likes a frontrunner, particularly one who says she is the ‘inevitable’ candidate. Anybody who is a frontrunner for as long as she was, was inevitably going to get some flack. Her campaign is not inspirational. She was the first to go negative. She actually seemed vindictive and bitter at times. (Her comment about Saturday night live during the ohio debates was just so junior high school). Other than her cry in New Hampshire, her campaign is like the bitter version of Kerry’s campaign in 2004. Both Senators from the Northeast, (the last senator to become president was kennedy, and I can’t remember the last northeastern president) and it is more about being anti-bush than pro-them. Senators are not well-liked. Northeasterners are not well-liked. And being anti-bush is really likable either.
5) She is a she
Many people don’t like uppity women. Uppity women tend to inspire more uppity women. It’s contagious. Even more people don’t want no woman as president. First the WNBA,now this. There are fears of what she might do when she is PMS-ing. There are fears that if she were to win, she would unleash some sort of femi-nazism and just start hating on men. There are fears that she wouldn’t make a good commander-in-chief because women are too maternal to be good fighters, let alone military leaders.
I can’t think of anything else, although I am sure there is more. But to sum up, here are the people who hate her: Republican Congressmen, HMOs, feminists, social conservatives, sexists, doves, diplomats, deliberative democrats, underdogs, people who hate careerists, people who like clean campaigns, people who didn’t like Kerry, people who don’t like Senators, people who don’t like Northeasterners, people who don’t vindictiveness and bitterness. That is a lot of people. A lot of diverse people, scanning the ideological spectrum, the political spectrum, and whatever other spectrum you can think of. Some of it seems justified; some of it seems ludicrous; and some of it seems fucked up. Some of it is her fault; some of it is not her fault; and some of it is anybody’s guess. She is both good and bad; victim and oppressor; vanguard and rearguard. But because it is so complex, I take caution when people try and regard her candidacy as some sort of bellwhether for the status of women. It is not that simple. As much as we want to hold on to identity politics; we also don't want to fall into the trap of completely falling into and defining people solely via identity politics.
But it is fascinating to see how hate can make for some strange bedfellows. One thing beneficial from all of this is that it has forced those that lean to the left to distinguish their criticisms of Hilary from those that lean to the right. The wide range of bedfellows has forced people like me to focus and justify their criticisms. When I criticize Hillary, it is solely around a certain policy stance or something she has said during the campaign. In other words, it has forced me to make my criticisms substantive. Because she carries so much baggage, it forces people to make the kind of criticisms that are political and not petty. That is healthy. This is how politics should work. When it comes to politics, I shouldn’t care how you look, what gender you are, what your personal life entails. When it comes to politics, it should be about your policy stances, your voting patterns, and your stump speeches. So in that sense, the hatred of Hillary has in some ways reinvigorated the public sphere, honing criticisms to be more political than personal.
1) Universal Health care
During Bill Clinton’s first year in the White House, Hillary spearheaded efforts to try and get universal health care. Republicans were in control of Congress back then and they went all-out against Hillary. HMOs weren’t paying these Congressmen for nothing. She was labeled a socialist, supposedly wanted to tax the hell out of Americans, and was using her status as first lady to do what should be left to elected officials. They even burned a puppet of her in effigy. This is YEAR ONE. After the Republican onslaught, her health care initiative died and she went into hiding.
2) Bill’s blowjob
Most people remember the story, but for those that don’t, here is a quick recap: Bill gets a blowjob from an intern named Monica Lewinsky. Subsequently lies about it on national TV, almost gets impeached for lying about it, and then confesses that he lied about it. Not only does this tarnish Bill’s legacy and reputation, but it also tarnishes Hillary’s as well. Everybody was wondering how Hillary is dealing with this whole event (which by the way lasted several months) and what, if anything, was she going to do once she found out that her husband cheated on her. We never heard from her and so we were left to speculate. What we do know is that she stayed married to him. So, was she simply being a careerist, thereby pissing off those who prize integrity and dignity? Was she playing the humble housewife that forgives her husband’s transgressions, thereby pissing off feminists? Is this basically comeuppance for trying to be a working woman, thereby validating social conservatives disdain for her?
3) Foreign Policy
She voted for the war in Iraq and has refused to acknowledge the mistake. She has said she is open to attacking Iran. Also, she hasn’t ruled out torture. She doesn’t want to make any firm commitments about closing Guantanamo Bay. She criticizes Barack Obama for wanting to talk to foreign leaders who we disagree with. She even says that she would make the better democratic nominee for president because she is more of a hawk than Obama and that is what is needed to beat John McCain. She is a hawk. And in foreign policy parlance, that just draws the bitter ire of any and all doves, diplomats, and deliberative democrats.
4) Presidential Campaign
Firstly, no one likes a frontrunner, particularly one who says she is the ‘inevitable’ candidate. Anybody who is a frontrunner for as long as she was, was inevitably going to get some flack. Her campaign is not inspirational. She was the first to go negative. She actually seemed vindictive and bitter at times. (Her comment about Saturday night live during the ohio debates was just so junior high school). Other than her cry in New Hampshire, her campaign is like the bitter version of Kerry’s campaign in 2004. Both Senators from the Northeast, (the last senator to become president was kennedy, and I can’t remember the last northeastern president) and it is more about being anti-bush than pro-them. Senators are not well-liked. Northeasterners are not well-liked. And being anti-bush is really likable either.
5) She is a she
Many people don’t like uppity women. Uppity women tend to inspire more uppity women. It’s contagious. Even more people don’t want no woman as president. First the WNBA,now this. There are fears of what she might do when she is PMS-ing. There are fears that if she were to win, she would unleash some sort of femi-nazism and just start hating on men. There are fears that she wouldn’t make a good commander-in-chief because women are too maternal to be good fighters, let alone military leaders.
I can’t think of anything else, although I am sure there is more. But to sum up, here are the people who hate her: Republican Congressmen, HMOs, feminists, social conservatives, sexists, doves, diplomats, deliberative democrats, underdogs, people who hate careerists, people who like clean campaigns, people who didn’t like Kerry, people who don’t like Senators, people who don’t like Northeasterners, people who don’t vindictiveness and bitterness. That is a lot of people. A lot of diverse people, scanning the ideological spectrum, the political spectrum, and whatever other spectrum you can think of. Some of it seems justified; some of it seems ludicrous; and some of it seems fucked up. Some of it is her fault; some of it is not her fault; and some of it is anybody’s guess. She is both good and bad; victim and oppressor; vanguard and rearguard. But because it is so complex, I take caution when people try and regard her candidacy as some sort of bellwhether for the status of women. It is not that simple. As much as we want to hold on to identity politics; we also don't want to fall into the trap of completely falling into and defining people solely via identity politics.
But it is fascinating to see how hate can make for some strange bedfellows. One thing beneficial from all of this is that it has forced those that lean to the left to distinguish their criticisms of Hilary from those that lean to the right. The wide range of bedfellows has forced people like me to focus and justify their criticisms. When I criticize Hillary, it is solely around a certain policy stance or something she has said during the campaign. In other words, it has forced me to make my criticisms substantive. Because she carries so much baggage, it forces people to make the kind of criticisms that are political and not petty. That is healthy. This is how politics should work. When it comes to politics, I shouldn’t care how you look, what gender you are, what your personal life entails. When it comes to politics, it should be about your policy stances, your voting patterns, and your stump speeches. So in that sense, the hatred of Hillary has in some ways reinvigorated the public sphere, honing criticisms to be more political than personal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)