Hey, Democrats: Check Your Privilege!

Any upwardly mobile black American can tell you that to succeed, we must be twice as good as our competitors. That’s because historically, the very institutions that worked as gatekeepers to certain avenues of success worked especially hard at discriminating against us. Successful blacks recognize discrimination, swim upstream against it, and achieve in spite of it. Unsuccessful blacks too often use injustice as an excuse for underperformance and bad choices. While both groups may openly castigate this discrimination, one group acts, while the other simply complains. What does this have to do with the CNBC Republican Debate, you might ask.

Everything.

By every measure, the CNBC hosts conducted an awful debate: John Harwood snidely asked Donald Trump if he was running “a comic book version of a presidential campaign.” He also sarcastically asked Carly Fiorina, who, like the rest of her Republican competitors, wants to greatly simplify the tax code, if she intended to shorten the tax code by “using really small type.” Carl Quintanilla badgered Marco Rubio for missing votes, asking, “do you hate your job?”

The moderators’ disrespect and contempt for conservative Republicans oozed through in every exchange–so much so, that the audience frequently booed them.

Compare this treatment to that which the Democrats receive on a regular basis. When did Anderson Cooper, in the CNN debate, ask if Bernie Sanders was running a “comic book campaign?” Did anyone challenge the math behind any of the Democrats’ tax plans or schemes to provide health care and college for “free?” Is Marco Rubio more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? Quintanilla challenged the premise of Rubio’s candidacy, asking if he was seeking higher office simply to placate an unchecked ego. How would Mrs. Clinton answer that question? We’ll never know.

In the liberal vernacular of race relations, this phenomenon is called white privilege. The idea is, whites enjoy less scrutiny and benefit disproportionately from favorable treatment. Blacks who decry white privilege are shouted down, told they are imagining things, or are simply ignored. Nevertheless, the results of privilege manifest themselves plainly, and to overcome this obstacle, blacks must work extra hard.

Similarly, Democrats benefit from institutionalized privilege. Carly Fiorina faces tough scrutiny for her time manning the helm of HP during an economic downturn, while Hillary Clinton earns lavish praise for the easier task of winning a Senate seat in liberal New York. Acclaimed neurosurgeon, Ben Carson, parries relentless media attacks on his intelligence, while Bernie Sanders receives no questioning about his honeymoon to the Soviet Union–a nation that worked to murder Americans as it had so many of its own people.

Without a doubt, media scrutiny represents the greatest struggle a candidate must overcome to achieve political success. In a free society, such should be the case. In this free society, one political party enjoys a pass–liberal privilege. Ask the gatekeepers, like Eric Altermann, about liberal media privilege, and they hedge and obfuscate and insist that discrimination is in the eye of the beholder.

So be it, bigots.

Republican, Booker T. Washington, famously writes in “Up from Slavery” that “success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed.” Americans instinctively know the truth in this timeless statement. Republicans should, therefore, keep this in mind as we move forward. While the media works, as Rubio puts it, as the Democrats’ Super PAC, we cannot forget that a Republican president will be facing this very same hostile liberal media while in office. Simply complaining about discrimination, rather than working to succeed in spite of it is a recipe for defeat and victimization. Instead, I urge Republicans to rest assured that as we weather these storms of media discrimination, our nominee will be that much stronger than the Democrats’, because he or she will have had to work twice as hard.

 

3 Reasons Why Republicans Should Keep an Open Mind about Jeb

After months of Hamlet-like vacillation, John Ellis (Jeb) Bush decides to join the 2016 Presidential race. The leader among all of the declared and undeclared Republican presidential candidates, Bush offers something most of the candidates do not–executive experience running a state that the GOP must win in order to win the 2016 election. Still though, many Republicans remain skeptical of Mr. Bush, some flatly refusing to vote for “another Bush.” Here are 3 reasons why Republicans should keep an open mind about the Jeb Bush candidacy.

 

Reason One: Jeb Bush Joins the Race Enjoying Advantages the Other Candidates Envy


Martin O’Malley, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson share a common first hurdle to a successful White House bid–earning widespread name recognition. For some candidates, their relative obscurity serves them well: Senator Marco Rubio, for example, can define himself on his own terms. Martin O’Malley, on the other hand, struggles to get any attention at all. For Jeb Bush, name recognition cuts both ways: on the one hand, Bush enjoys the benefits of belonging to a respected political family that Americans feel as if they know. After all, the only Republicans to win the White House since Ronald Reagan were Bushes. Still, though,Jeb must make the case that he is his own man, worthy of the job on his own merits, not just because of his last name. That task represents an opportunity similar to Senator Rubio’s.

 

Being from such a successful political family brings with it two more important advantages–networking and money. Leading up to his announcement, Bush has been cobbling together an enviable campaign team of big names like Danny Diaz, Heather Larrison, and Alex Lundry. Many of these people worked on Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign and worked for George W. Bush as well.

 

Heather Larrison leads Bush’s dynamic fundraising team that has been greatly outpacing his rivals’. Mr. Rubio, also from Florida, has been struggling to build his fundraising base upon Florida donors, because Bush’s influence in the state is deeper and wider-reaching. In fact, whichever candidate performs worse in Florida’s winner take all primary will likely end his White House bid immediately thereafter.

 

Name recognition, deep political networks and strong fundraising abilities are important aspects to running a winning campaign.

 

Reason Two: America Values Individual Accomplishment More than Bloodlines


By far, the most braindead “argument” against a Jeb Bush presidential run (and in fairness, against Hillary Clinton as well) is “Not Another Bush.” This reticence to support Mr. Bush purely based on his last name indicates immaturity and irrational thinking. For those of us who have siblings, would it be fair to say that knowing one of you is the same as knowing the other? Do you think the same as your siblings on all matters? Do you think the same as your father on all matters? Most matters?

 

Most bothersome about the “Not Another Bush” line, is that it runs contrary to America’s greatest ideal, that which sets us apart from our European kin: America values the individual more than the bloodline. And we should continue to do so. Betraying that idea betrays the notion that anyone can “make it” in America if he or she just works hard and plays by the rules.

 

By this standard, Jeb Bush has earned his right to be taken seriously along with the other candidates because he governed Florida successfully and conservatively. At present, he appears to be an upstanding man with a good family (all families face challenges, of course). He holds his own policy positions that may vary from his brother and father, and still fall within the conservative spectrum. On these elements should he be judged, not on his family lineage.

 

Reason Three: Jeb Bush Falls within the GOP Mainstream


The 2016 GOP candidate will surely need the support from the broadest coalitions of the conservative movement. He or she will need to speak most of all to social conservatives, economic conservatives, and defense-minded conservatives. On the issues most important to these constituencies, Jeb Bush falls within the mainstream. Unlike George Pataki, Bush holds a consistent record opposing abortion. Unlike Mike Huckabee, Bush does not need to defend himself against allegations of reliance on federal funds during his governorship. Unlike Rand Paul, Bush speaks clearly about reinstating a forward-leaning foreign policy.

 

Furthermore, for Bush’s conservative bona fides, he strikes a moderate tone–an important ingredient for any GOP candidate to win the general election.

 

Without a doubt, Mr. Bush faces a list of challenges and formidable candidates in his 2016 bid. While he leads the pack in most polls, his lead wanes–most notably, in Florida. Still, though, Bush represents a serious candidate in whom Republicans can take pride. A welcome addition to the large field of candidates, Jeb Bush deserves serious consideration in his own right.

iCarly

Joining Dr. Ben Carson’s entrance into the GOP nomination pool, former Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina, announced her presidential campaign. Fiorina leads the pack of Republican hopefuls in her incisive critiques of Democrat frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.

We must understand our role in the world – which is to lead – and the nature of our allies and especially, our adversaries. Like Hillary Clinton, I too have travelled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe. But unlike her, I have actually accomplished something…Mrs. Clinton, flying is an activity not an accomplishment.”

This, her most memorable line so far, provides a glimpse into her vision of American leadership in foreign affairs, but also her feistiness. In this statement, Fiorina asks the most important question Mrs. Clinton must answer: In the many years you have spent in public service, what have you done for this country that you take pride in?

Turning this question around on her, many of her detractors, including some on the right, note that Fiorina has never worked in government. She ran for Senate in California in 2010 and lost–giving Republicans desperate for a presidential win reason for reconsideration. Fiorina, though, answers that her tenure at Hewlett-Packard makes her uniquely qualified, at least among the rest of the GOP field, to be president. This assertion speaks to an issue in presidential politics in which the voters do not know what careers best prepare their employees to be president of the United States. Furthermore, her tenure at Hewlett-Packard is not without its share of detractors.

“Fiorina’s short time at Hewlett-Packard is all we need to know — laying off 30,000 employees, while being rewarded with a multimillion dollar bonus,” Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Holly Shulman said in a statement. “If this is how Fiorina ran her business, just imagine what she would do to the country.”

Of course, most conservatives understand exactly what difficulties face business executives who run for office. “The fact is, business people have to make tough decisions,” Mart Wilson, Fiorina’s 2010 Senate campaign manager said to CNN. “In the end,” says Sarah Isgur Flores, Fiorina’s deputy campaign manager, “the company succeeded and grew [through the Great Recession] because of her tough choices.”

The problem Fiorina faces in defending her record is that for Republicans to win in 2016, a case must be made to independent voters–voters who do not understand and grant the same deference to business leaders as conservatives do. Fiorina’s populist message, painting her failed Senate campaign as a plus that allows her to benefit from her status as a “Washington Outsider,” will be damaged or bolstered by the way she answers criticisms about her tenure as Hewlett-Packard’s CEO.
At this point, though, Fiorina’s participation in the GOP presidential field goes a long way to helping the party showcase its diversity. Showcasing the Party’s bright, successful, fiery women can erode the stereotypes liberals paint of a paternalistic Republican Party insensitive to women’s issues. Fiorina can sting Hillary Clinton in ways that none of the Republican men can without seeming like bullies. Even if Fiorina does not win the nomination, she could still serve as a strong Vice Presidential pick, or as a positive voice for the 2016 campaign.

Baltimore: Cops and Robbers

Blacks, Whites, Boys in Blue, and the Unsolved Mystery of Freddie Gray


I’ve lived, my entire life, in one of the most violent cities of America–Chicago (known by some as “Chi-raq” because of the high number of shootings). I’ve experienced racial profiling: I’ve been harassed by police officers who insisted that my car was stolen–that my white friend and I were looking for drugs whenever we visited my relatives who lived in blighted parts of the city. And while I have many friends who are police officers, these events shape the way I view police–with gratitude and respect for the difficult job they do, simultaneously understanding what mayhem arises when the power of life and death rests in the hands of fallen man.

When I drive past police cars, I sit a little straighter, keep my hands at 10 and 2 and watch the cruiser in my rear view mirror until it’s out of my sight. I surely share a fear that many black men do: that having an encounter with a police officer on a power trip is a likely enough possibility–one with deadly consequences. Unlike being faced with a similar encounter with any other person employed in virtually any other line of work, I can’t win. I can’t defend myself. I can’t protect my dignity without fear of facing grave consequences. Even with the proliferation of cell phone videos and social media, my side of the story may never be heard. I can be brutalized unjustly while my family and friends sustain the unhealable scars. My only recourse is to wait until the negative interaction ends, and then complain to the cop’s supervisor (colleagues) in mostly futile hopes that some future citizen will be spared whatever ordeal I have experienced.

“Behavior that might land some defendants in jail, such as beating or even shooting another person, are not just permitted for police officers but are assumed to be part of their work,” writes Michael Wines in the New York Times.

That’s no way to live in America, and my sense is that police officers, by and large, do not want citizens to feel that way about them.

Slowly–hesitatingly–police departments across the country are starting to do the right thing in wearing body cameras. This partial solution, still in its nascent stages, may change things for the better, but is only a small step in the right direction. Had the Baltimore police officers charged in Freddie Gray’s murder been wearing body cameras, the devices likely would not shed much  more light on the mysterious events leading to Gray’s death. Still, though, body cameras would have served Officer Darren Wilson quite well, and more quickly dispelled the myth that Michael Brown raised his hands in surrender when Officer Wilson shot him.

Another legislative change that can improve the relationship between police and citizens would allow citizens to record arrests from their cell phones and other devices given that they are not interfering with police activity. Youtube and Liveleak show scores of videos in which police officers discourage filming, sometimes threatening force against the recorders, or arguing erroneously that the filming violates the law in states and localities in which the filming is actually lawful. Without these videos, like that capturing Officer Michael Slager shooting Walter Scott in the back, the public loses some context that undergirds black fear of police officers. Furthermore, these recordings, coupled with those produced by department body cameras, may serve to exonerate police actions.

The most important change necessary to alleviate tension between police and certain communities may elude legislators and policy makers. This change in the “code of silence,”  which finds police officers refusing to report bad behaviors committed by fellow officers, would reinforce the desired impression that police forces support the most important aspect of American law–its universal application. The “code of silence” among police officers frustrates the efforts of our legal system to punish wrongdoers similarly to the way “no snitching” hampers justice for victims in troubled communities. The “code of silence” would have protected Chicago Police Officer, Anthony Abbate, a 12-year police veteran who savagely beat a petite female bartender, Karina Obrycka, in 2007–if not for the bar’s security camera that captured the attack. Obrycka reported receiving death threats from Chicago police officers, urging her (unsuccessfully) to drop her charges. This culture of corruption and intimidation sows fear in the minds of citizens, relegating our police forces to tax-supported street gangs. Failure to dispatch with that reputation; and reluctance, by police forces, to adopt common sense solutions aimed at increasing transparency and accountability; threaten the legitimacy of the entire justice system. In many communities, especially communities of color, skepticism about the justice system’s fairness abounds.

Deservedly or not, police departments throughout the country face increased scrutiny while high-profile cases of unarmed black men shot by police officers mount up. Rather than allowing these challenges to further tarnish the front line of our legal system, police departments should proactively address public concerns about their transparency and tactics, show a sign of good faith with the communities they serve and distance themselves from the few incidents of a few departments that may cast a pall over all law enforcement.

Enter Baltimore, Freddie Gray, and the ensuing riots.


Some Baltimore residents argue that Freddie Gray’s arrest (perhaps an unlawful one) and death at the hands of six Baltimore police officers represented the tipping point in an increasingly tense situation between citizens and the police. In 2010, a jury acquitted a Baltimore police officer for shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back. In 2011, a judge in Baltimore acquitted three officers charged with kidnapping and false imprisonment after driving two teenagers miles from their homes and leaving them in a different county without socks and shoes. Last fall, the Baltimore Sun released the results of an investigation that showed that over the last 4 years, Baltimore paid about $5.7 million to more than 100 people who won court settlements related to police brutality and civil rights abuses.  Today, allegations that police severed Gray’s spine, killing him, when they placed him face down in a transport van and drove recklessly–a tactic known as a “rough ride”–confound Baltimore’s police department as they deal with the resulting indictments, riots and violence.

While the rioters’ rage may be understandable, the riots themselves are not.Of course, not everyone agrees with my claim.  Salon’s Benji Hart argues that the looting and violence is a legitimate black political tactic, and that calling the rioters uncivilized is racist. I hold that arguing that blacks should uniquely be expected and encouraged to victimize others out of frustration, dehumanizes blacks–reducing us to opportunistic thugs, ticking time bombs, using perceived injustices as reason enough act antisocially. One might ask what it means to hold such a flippant, ugly, view of blacks, while not expecting whites to riot after the 2012 elections, for example.There is no logical link between Gray’s death and looting.

Jason Riley writes a brave and important piece arguing that protesters and apologists excused the violent riots in Ferguson because the racial makeup of Ferguson’s city government contained too few blacks. By contrast:

“Broad diversity is not a problem in Baltimore, where 63% of residents and 40% of police officers are black. The current police commissioner is also black, and he isn’t the first one. The mayor is black, as was her predecessor and as is a majority of the city council.”

Unsurprisingly, the riots’ biggest supporters are liberals. Michael Eric Dyson, writing in the New York Times, lays the groundwork for why Baltimore offers such a rich environment for rioting:

“The unemployment rate in the community where Mr. Gray lived is over 50 percent; the high school student absence rate hovers at 49.3 percent; and life expectancy tops out at 68.8 years…these statistics are a small glimpse of the radical inequality that blankets poor black Baltimore. it’s no wonder that black Baltimore erupted in social fury.”

These statistics interest me because so often, liberalism plays a sick joke on Americans who fall for it: liberal policies loot the wealthy (local businesses, big box stores, citizens, etc.) to give to the poor, but when they rule cities, as they have ruled Baltimore for years, the poor live in appalling privation. As a result, according to liberals, citizens of liberal cities resort to stealing from the wealthy (local businesses, big box stores, citizens, etc.) to do what liberal policies failed to do in the first place–equalize the rich and the poor. In other words, liberalism’s thieving policies fail to benefit its constituents, and actually beget more thieving.

Of course, I recognize that the Baltimore riots stem from more than just liberal ideas and policies. Distrust of police forces, and of the justice system it serves, stems from some real grievances that police departments must address. The answer is never to compound the injustice, either by rioting, looting, or convicting officers on flimsy charges. The answer is for police departments to get serious about transparency, kill the “culture of silence” that protects racist emails and violent cops like Abbate, and begin to take seriously the effect bad practices can have on eroding the rule of law. Citizens, of every race, must protest injustice without victimizing others. Excusing further victimization as somehow intrinsic to blackness or sound black political action fuels the suspicions that blacks are latent criminals deserving of disproportional scrutiny.

A Letter to Ms. Julia Cohen

Dear Ms. Cohen,

I spend a significant portion of my life participating in politics. When I’m not reading about it, I’m listening to it on the radio, otherwise I’m thinking about it. Likewise, I come across many articles on the subject, but rarely do I feel compelled to respond directly to columns. Yours is different. “What about the Moderates?” strikes me as a particularly important piece because you touch upon an issue that every American wrestles with if he/she is politically inclined–where do I fit into the binary party system? I’d like to argue, first, in favor of our two party system, and then, in support of one of those parties. I hope to offer you some clarity on your political journey.

You and I share some commonalities: I started my political journey on the Left and moved rightward when I was young, for example. To give you an idea of how liberal I was, I was torn between voting for Ralph Nader and Al Gore in 2000. I emailed my professors about my dilemma, and talked to my entirely liberal family about what I should do. 2000 was my first election. It meant something to me–about my integrity, my values, and my commitment to my country. I wanted to make the right choice.

Like many liberals, I found the Democrat candidate too far to the right, too beholden to corporate interests, too timid to fight for liberal values and to stop the right-wing hate machine in its tracks. Ralph Nader made his career on these liberal values. He championed the people as a consumer advocate. He always thought outside the two-party box on political issues, even though he spent the majority of his political life ensconced in the Democrat Party. He represented the real liberal choice for 2000, but he didn’t stand a chance.

When I hectored my liberal professors and family members for advice, they told me not to “waste my vote.” They told me that I had to compromise my values for a candidate who can win. They told me that American politics moves incrementally, and that if I wanted to advocate a leftward shift in the Democrat Party, I would have more success doing so from within the party rather than from the outside.

They were right.

But what lesson does this impart to the independents, moderates and radicals who find no home in our political parties, but want to express their patriotism by affecting positive political change?

The lesson is blunt–Get Real.

“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable,” Otto von Bismarck famously states. The United States consists of more than 300 million people with twice as many competing preferences and values–each nuanced and based in strongly-held beliefs of varying degrees of rationality. Boiling these preferences down into like categories, and then creating coalitions–parties–around people who share the same preferences would lead to thousands of parties. To some, a multiparty system would represent a positive development in American politics, a reality akin to that in countries like Italy. In practice, what results is dysfunction: hordes of frustrated people who, for some reason or another, never create enough momentum among the disparate parties to move the country in the right direction. In short, politics becomes futile–unable to realize “the possible,” unable to attain anything.

I support our two party system because it represents a logical stasis point. Our two party system is not divided along issue lines, rather it is divided between two competing philosophies of rights and the proper role of the State. The Left–liberals, Democrats–believe that rights derive from the State, and that the hierarchy of rights can be affirmed by a consensus of philosophy and theory. The Right–conservatives, Republicans–believe that an external Creator bestows rights upon us. These rights cannot be curtailed by a government, lest that government forfeit its legitimacy. Through religion, and tradition, we discover and protect these rights, thereby upholding social order by avoiding the chaos associated with the Left’s capricious definition of rights.

In other words, actual policy positions are subordinate to the overarching philosophy on how to order society. The question independents, moderates, and radicals need to ask isn’t “Which party represents my values,” but rather, “Which party agrees with the way in which my values should be argued and implemented?” Once that question is answered, the best thing to do is to choose a party and work to push it in the direction of your choosing.

That’s what I did. I voted for Al Gore, and lost.

As I wrestled with the philosophy of rights, my political journey took me rightward, into the welcoming arms of the Republican Party where I happily reside today. Our Republican Party is a big tent, Ms. Cohen. You can be “a good Republican” and disagree on some policy points. There’s plenty of room for you and I to debate marriage equality–and I hope we do. Most importantly, I enjoy the opportunity to stand alongside a fellow Wildcat, working together toward a strong foreign policy, lower taxes, a better party, and a better country.